A U.S. Special Forces team links up with a local Alaska Native person who will guide it to a long-range radar station along the most northern coastline of Alaska. The temperature is a bitter 40 degrees below zero with winds gusting up to 25 miles per hour. This time of year, there is no sunlight, just darkness with only the snow reflecting the little ambient light there is. The team conducts its reconnaissance of the radar site to ensure it is secure and look for evidence of some other hostile force that may be in the area. The scenario is part of a US joint military exercise that is conducted every two years in Alaska. Native communities provide resources, knowledge, and information to US and Canadian forces developing capacities to secure and defend the North American Arctic.

The increased accessibility to natural resources and navigational routes in the Arctic due to rapid climate changes has elevated interest, both domestically and from foreign national states, such as Russia and China. As a result, the Arctic region experiences increased competition for resources and access to and through the Arctic which has led to Arctic security postures. For the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, reinforcing rule-based order and maintaining consistent domain awareness are a couple of the strategic measures to support securing the Arctic.[i] The people who live in and near the Arctic have a vested interest to ensure that all domains (i.e., air, land, space, and waters) are secured and sovereignties are legitimized. The Arctic, as a polar region, can be viewed through different zones (see Figure 1) that does not have a clear geographical boundary when considering the population within the Arctic. The subarctic is integral to thinking about the Arctic and those who live and thrive in the region. Although the number of Indigenous people living in the Arctic region is about 10 percent of the total four million, they are the preponderant inhabitants outside of the few city centers regionally located. The Indigenous people have legitimate sovereignty that is internal to recognized Arctic nation-state governments.[ii] 

Particularly within the North American Artic, the United States, Canada, and Greenland (the Realm of Denmark), those who live outside of major population centers predominately identify as Indigenous peoples. The Indigenous population is the highest in the Canadian Arctic and in Greenland, consisting of more than 75% of the total population. For Canada, almost half of the 150,000 inhabitants of Canada’s Artic are Indigenous.[iii] In the U.S., 84 percent of rural Alaska are Alaska Native people.[iv] The Greenlandic Inuit make up nearly 90% of Greenland’s total population.[v] In these remote and austere lands and coastal regions, Indigenous people have a vested interest in ensuring their way of life, access to critical resources, and cultural integrity are paramount. Given Indigenous people have internal sovereignty within nation-state sovereignties, there is a shared or common interest between nation-state governments and Indigenous peoples to collaborate and invest in securing the North American Arctic.

Trust Responsibility

In recent years, efforts have been made by Indigenous leaders throughout Canada and the U.S. to solidify and legitimize the sovereignty of Indigenous Nations. Additionally, measures to acknowledge and address some of the historical traumas have been made.[vi] Governmental prohibition of cultural practices, marginalization, and forced acculturation into western culture are just a few collective efforts to delegitimize Native people and their claims. However, there have been some measures taken to reconcile some past traumas.  

For the Alaska Native people, the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA; 1971) was an agreement to settle land claims levied by Alaska Native communities and organizations. It resulted in the formation of a collection of Alaska Native corporations where some financial compensation (nearly $1 billion USD) and land distributions (44 million acres) were returned to the Alaska Native people.[vii] As a result, federally recognized tribes have the right to request government-to-government consultation on US Department of Defense (DoD) activities that may have an impact on those tribes. Although not having the same authorities as tribes, Alaska Native corporations (ANCs) do have the right to consultation for those resources that such entities are responsible for. However, they do not have the right, at this time, to request government-to-government consultation.[viii] Given the imperfections of ANSCA, the act has advanced the legitimacy within a federal system the Alaska Native people require.  

The Indian Act and the Constitution Act of 1982 are two critical documents that advance the requirement for reconciliation with and self-governance by the Indigenous people of Canada.[ix] Indigenous governing bodies have been able to increase their legal authorities which has, in turn, shaped the interactions between the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) and how they train and operate in the most northern territories and providences. Training and operating in the Arctic areas of Canada, the CAF coordinates with Native-owned businesses and governing bodies to coordinate, sustain, and support military activities. Not only does the CAF have the obligation to coordinate with Native governing bodies but logistical support must be organic to the region. Otherwise, outfitting and sustaining such forces could be nearly unsurmountable.

The Kingdom of Denmark’s military security responsibility for Greenland is directed by the Royal Danish forces. The Self-Government of Greenland provides Greenland some voice in its governing, but formal self-governing authorities extended from the Realm of Denmark to the Inuit people of Greenland are thin at best.[x] For defense security, Greenland relies on Denmark’s defense for its security given the high cost associated with securing its island borders. What is not clear is what levels of effort exist between Greenlandic Inuit people and Royal Danish forces to collaborate in the defense of Greenland.

It is anticipated that the momentum towards increasing the legitimacy of Indigenous people in the Artic region will continue to advance. This advancement necessitates a trust responsibility that can overshadow the historical (and even current) oppressive and marginalization behaviors, policies, and laws of central governments. For American Indians and Alaska Native people, the U. S. Federal Government has a trust responsibility to the wellbeing of Native people that has been established by law, executive orders, and policies.[xi] Looking ahead, the political, economic, and climate implications on these three countries demand a collaborative and inclusive effort to secure and, if necessary, defend the North American Arctic. 

Enduring Trust through Securing the Homeland

Climate change impacts, sovereignty validation, and economic development are just a few shared interests between Indigenous communities and organizations, and national government interests. However, approaches to Indigenous people’s inclusion continue to require further attention. For instance, issues of trust, unresolved historical trauma, and well-defined pathways that actualize a shared strategic vision to deter foreign encroachment, protect resources, and defend, if necessary, warrant more effort. An enduring trust relationship between Indigenous leaders is foundational and necessary. Identifying and navigating collaboratively those shared problem sets can serve as a means to build equity in trust that could lead to a more unified and synergized effort to secure the sovereignty of Indigenous people while strengthening the security posture of the homeland.

Securing the North American Arctic is dependent, in part, on the populace’s understanding of the various emerging vulnerabilities to permit the formation of effective and innovative efforts. Economic competition, maritime control, cyber manipulations, and climate change are examples of vulnerabilities that can be approached collaboratively between government agencies, vested organizations, and Indigenous enterprises. The process to developing innovative solutions is iterative in that political power must be shared with Indigenous people to permit conversations to be legitimized. Without a voice with power, inclusivity is limited.

Many recognize there are many issues to be resolved to rectify past grievances and address inequities that continue unabated in governing and social policies, systemic biases, social norms, and other forms that perpetuate colonialist attributes. Yet, there are four domains that could serve useful in contributing to the emerging narrative of trust, security, and sovereignty: economic development, social accountability, political purposefulness, and cultural autonomy. Building shared experiences that fuel a purposeful and meaningful set of behaviors that contribute to the social well-being that is more equitable increases trust relations.

First of the domains is economic development contributes to multifaceted aspects of security. Food and water security, medical security, and shelter security are just a few types of security that are directly influenced by economic development. Governing bodies with financial resources are proportionately more capable to develop infrastructure, to provide social care, to maintain operations for municipal functioning, and to develop innovations. With the right balance of federal agencies contracting services, projects, and equipment with rural Indigenous companies employing their own people, Native communities have greater capacities to invest in their communities. However, it must exceed the threshold from marginally surviving to a level where prosperity is possible.

Some approaches to consider include increased economic opportunities that can be wide in range. For instance, with infrastructure projects, defense forces collaborate and coordinate with Indigenous companies and municipalities to identify those projects that could have dual usage. Airstrips, control towers, roadways, and marine ports are just a few examples of projects that could be enhanced to meet commercial or public needs while providing capacity for military use. This shared usage could provide access and maneuverability for military forces while commercial enterprises could advance innovations and scalability.

Second, social accountability allows for Indigenous people to rectify marginalizing policies and practices. Regrettably, history throughout Canada and the U.S. is replete with traumatic practices that continue to have ramifications. Marginalizing women as noted in the Indian Act is an example of how existing policies in Canada demonstrate the need to improve access to all.[xii] Many rural Alaska Native communities are without adequate sanitation systems or potable water. Instead, there are villages where individual households have to portage their human waste from the house to a sewage collection point.[xiii] The health disparities alone are well documented that range from disproportionate rates among Native people of diabetes, hypertension, and life expectancy, for instance. These kinds of conditions are potential invitations for other nation-state actors whose intentions might be more nefarious as they seek inroads into communities to better understand vulnerabilities and influence public opinion.

Improving healthcare accessibility is one area that could contribute to the collective psyche of inclusivity while improving wellness among rural Indigenous communities. During the COVID pandemic, many rural communities had difficulties accessing health care because of the limitations of flights to healthcare hubs. Developing partnerships between the military aircraft could be one means to support the transportation for maintenance parts villages need to operate generators. Then, such transportation could be used to assist individuals who need care that is beyond the village’s capacity and could be brought to a more appropriate healthcare facility.

Third, political purposefulness in this context connotates establishing and reinforcing political power to Indigenous governing systems. A part of the trust responsibility reinforcing the sovereignty of Native people. Internal sovereignty permits Indigenous people to self-govern and make policy decisions that are more culturally attuned or relevant. Providing opportunities for Native leaders to contribute to defense or security conversations and decision-making activities improve the chance that Indigenous equities are represented and included in the formation of laws, policies, and practices. Instead of vying for political power or control for self-service, focusing on external issues, such as those noted above, shift the motivation to be more collaborative in solving problems and building opportunities based on the shared value of improving national security. Unfortunately, efforts by the privileged must come to terms with the realities of the disparities and compromise for the betterment of the collective. The past grievances highlighted by Indigenous people must be acknowledged and efforts made to reconcile satisfactorily.

Native people are making important shifts in the political equity scale but it is far from balanced. Greater efforts are needed to include Native voices with influence to shape the larger conversations of national security that incorporates Indigenous concerns and wishes. When examining the impacts of climate change, it is in both federal agency partners and the Indigenous governing entities to find collective solutions that address critical concerns. Melting of permafrost impacts military infrastructure stability while warming temperatures influence fisheries and sea mammal life patterns. Finding overlaps on those shared problem sets can exemplify commitments to find common ground to complex issues while building trust in both the interactions and outcomes.

Lastly, as economic and health disparities reduce, power distribution moves more equitably, and Indigenous representation becomes more incorporated in the shared security responsibility, cultural sovereignty gains greater legitimacy. With greater political capital, economic influence, and social equity, cultural identity development is more likely. Traditional practices, language revitalization, and other forms of cultural expression can become further embraced and accepted within and alongside Indigenous communities.

Subsistence living is greatly associated with cultural identity among Native people in Alaska. [xiv]Management of caribou herds, fisheries, and lands exemplify how the lifestyle that depends on nature to feed, heal, and protect Alaska Native people are a part of the identity of what it means to be Native. Advocating game and fishery management, for instance, has been an area Native people campaigned to ensure their communities can feed themselves. Synchronizing hunts according to the natural cycles has worked for Native people since time immemorial. This is a part of the cultural identity and development as tools are prepared, young hunters are brought into the hunt, and meat is shared among the community, generation after generation.  

Conclusion

The collaborative possibilities to address the security of the North American Arctic must be inclusive of the Aboriginal people of the lands. There is a vested interest by all citizens in protecting natural resources that support a way of life, countering competitive encroachment, and fostering development and sustainability. Authenticating the sovereignty of both Indigenous people and federal governments is not without friction or competition. However, keeping the focus on how to secure maritime borders, enforce the rule of law, and deter foreign nefarious activities are just a few areas where collaboration can promote a trust narrative that can usurp the historically traumatizing one. Arguably, Native people are also citizens of their respective countries and must be included in national- and allied-level security conversations.

There is a shared responsibility to secure the North. With increased trust comes increased capacity to collaborate on finding solutions to inherent conflicts that emerge from solving security-related issues. The results lead to a narrative that honors cultural diversity, shares political power, and advances economic equities more equitably across the North American Arctic region.

Dr. James Morton joined the Center for Alaska Native Health Research (CANHR), of the Institute of Arctic Biology (IAB) at the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) to further understand and address suicide among Native veterans, veterans in Alaska, and military service members stationed in rural and remote areas. Additionally, James is an affiliate of the Center for Arctic Security and Resilience (CASR) within the College of Business and Security Management at UAF. Within CASR, his focus is on understanding the relationships between Indigenous people and military forces, particularly with special operation forces, in the Arctic region. Dr. Morton earned his doctorate at Southern Illinois University in counselor education and educational psychology, a master of education in mental health at the University of Missouri-St Louis, and both a master of art in International Relations and a bachelor’s in technologies for developing countries at the University of Connecticut. He is a nationally board-certified professional counselor.

End Notes:

[i] Strategic Approach for Arctic Homeland Security. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Strategy, Policy, and Plans (2021). https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=cat07106a&AN=uaf.5686299&site=eds-live.

[ii] www.arctic-council.org/

[iii] www.arctic-council.org/about/states/canada/

[iv] www.firstalaskans.org

[v] www.iwgia.org/en/greenland.html

[vi] Maria Yellow Horse Brave Heart Ph.D., Josephine Chase Ph.D., Jennifer Elkins Ph.D. & Deborah B. Altschul Ph.D. (2011) Historical Trauma Among Indigenous Peoples of the Americas: Concepts, Research, and Clinical Considerations, Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, 43:4, 282-290, DOI: 10.1080/02791072.2011.628913

[vii] Hirschfield, Martha. "The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act: tribal sovereignty and the corporate form." Yale Law Journal 101 (1991): 1331.

[viii] Department of Defense Instruction 4710.02. DoDI Interactions with Federally Recognized Tribes. 24 September 2018

[ix] Hurley, Mary C., and Ross C. Gordon. The Indian Act. Parliamentary Information and Research Service (2009).

[x] Ackrén, Maria. 2022. “Development of Autonomy in Greenland – From Home Rule to Self-Government”. In Autonomy Arrangements in the World, 2nd edition. DOI: https://doi.org/10.57749/T2FH-FY42.

[xi] Leventhal, Larry B. "American Indians-The Trust Responsibility: An Overview." Hamline L. Rev. 8 (1985): 625.

[xii] Indian Act.

[xiii] Eichelberger, Laura, Korie Hickel, and Timothy K. Thomas. "A community approach to promote household water security: Combining centralized and decentralized access in remote Alaskan communities." Water Security 10 (2020).

[xiv] Thornton, Thomas F. "Subsistence in northern communities: Lessons from Alaska." Northern Review 23 (2001).