Inuit in the Arctic Council: How Does Depiction Differ?

The fact that Indigenous Peoples’ organizations have “Permanent Participant” status in the Arctic Council is often touted as one of the most positive features of the organization. However, the significance of being a permanent participant is contested. How does the Arctic Council itself characterize the status of Inuit, and permanent participants in general? How does the Inuit Circumpolar Council characterize its position in the Arctic Council? How do the governments of Canada, Denmark, Russia, and the United States—countries where Inuit reside—describe the participation of Inuit? This article presents a content analysis of a selection of primary documents to illuminate the answers to these questions. The major finding is that Inuit describe their status as leaders in the Arctic Council, while states and the Arctic Council itself describes them as participants.


Introduction
e fact that Indigenous Peoples' organizations have "Permanent Participant" status in the Arctic Council is one of the de ning features of the institution. e Arctic Council (AC) is an international institution consisting of all states with land in the Arctic-Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden, and the United States; permanent participant status means that Indigenous Peoples' organizations work in the institution with most of the same powers as states, save voting rights. e AC is the only international institution in which Indigenous Peoples have such a signi cant role. is article studies the discourse around the role of Inuit in the AC and the depiction of what the status means. It examines the way that the AC describes the role of Indigenous Peoples, as well as characterizations from governments in the states where Inuit territory lies (Canada, Denmark via Greenland, Russia, and the United States). is article then contrasts these discourses with portrayals of the role of Indigenous Peoples from the Inuit Circumpolar Council, which is the major international group representing Inuit people. e AC is important because it is the pre-eminent international institution focusing speci cally on Arctic issues and consisting of all Arctic states; six Indigenous Peoples' organizations possess permanent participant status-the Inuit Circumpolar Council, the Aleut International Association, the Arctic Athabaskan Council, the Gwich'in Council International, the Inuit Circumpolar Council, the Russian Association of Indigenous Peoples' of the North, and the Saami Council. e AC facilitates cooperation on environmental protection and sustainable development; and it organizes collaborative technical projects, joint research, and information sharing. It is occasionally a venue in which to negotiate international agreements. For example, the AC coordinated the creation of the 2004 Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, a climate change synthesis report with key contributions from Indigenous Peoples; this project led to follow-up assessments and information sharing mechanisms. It was the venue that governments used to create international agreements on search and rescue (2011), oil spill response (2013), and scienti c cooperation (2017); all eight Arctic states are signatories to these agreements.
Indigenous Peoples, including Inuit, play a key role in the AC as nonvoting members. In some ways, the Inuit's signi cant state-like powers make them leaders in the institution. Indigenous Peoples' organizations have the right to attend all AC meetings, propose AC projects, lead those projects, participate in initiatives, and comment in meetings. 1 e AC's rules of procedure describe permanent participants' status, role, and rights as distinct from states. ey have almost all the powers of states in the institution, save one-the Arctic Council makes decisions by consensus of the member states. 2 In other words, the institution undertakes decisions if all member states vote yes and Indigenous Peoples' organizations do not get a vote in this process. A norm has emerged in the institution such that a project should not move forward against strong opposition from Indigenous Peoples' organizations. Nonetheless, this convention is informal. Based on the situation around voting, another conclusion might be that Inuit have a role that precludes true leadership, or participation in the truest sense of the word. e purpose of this article is to understand the framing of the role of Inuit in the AC. e framing of their role impacts the understanding of their power, which can aff ect their institutional in uence in a tangible way. Are they seen as state-like leaders, or watchers? e answer to this question might impact whether states treat Indigenous Peoples' organizations as equals, or more like consultants. Speci cally, this research examines three research questions. How does the AC itself characterize the status of the Inuit organizations and permanent participants in general? How does the Inuit Circumpolar Council depict its position in the AC and, by extension, the position of other Indigenous Peoples? How do the governments of Canada, Denmark, Russia, and the United States describe the participation of Inuit in Arctic governance? As mentioned, this research focuses on the four states where Inuit territory lies. is research presents a discourse analysis of eighteen primary documents to illuminate the answers to these questions. As this article will show, offi cial AC documents tend to describe the Inuit and Indigenous Peoples' organizations as full participants in activities. is description is logical given their title (permanent participants), but underplays their potential leadership role in the institution (as potential project leaders). In contrast, some governments ascribe a more active role. Meanwhile, Inuit de ne their role as true leaders in the region and the AC. e next section provides an overview of existing literature, while the second section describes the method. e third section gives the results of the analysis. and the conclusion summarizes the ndings in relation to the hypotheses.

Literature
Literature on Arctic Council discourse focuses on general descriptions of the Arctic in media and concludes that those descriptions impact public opinion. Previous work has found that media description of the AC in Canada and the United States is largely accurate in accounting its role and function; such accounts occur in the context of reporting on climate change or perceived Arctic regional tensions. 3 Landriault argues that the way the media writes about the Arctic impacts the way the public understands the issue: " e less attention newspapers pay to the Arctic, the less public opinion approves of confrontational strategies to deal with circumpolar issues." 4 e author nds a link between media coverage and public opinion: "In fact, more positive coverage of Arctic issues during the 2010-2015 period coincided with more support for seeking compromises and negotiations in Canadian public opinion." 5 He further writes that governmental actors have a particularly crucial role in building discourse: " us, public preferences can be tilted in speci c directions, which makes them particularly susceptible to partisan political messaging." 6 e language used to describe Indigenous Peoples can impact the way people think about these Indigenous organizations and their in uence.
Existing literature nds that environment and economy are frames frequently present in discourse about the Arctic region. I have argued that previous governments, namely the Harper government in Canada (2006Canada ( -2015, underplayed the threat of Arctic climate change to the livelihood of Arctic residents and, by extension, to Indigenous Peoples, focusing instead on the threat to the ecosystem. 7 Government rhetoric frequently frames climate change as a threat to ecosystems and wildlife. 8 Lara Johannsdottir and David Cook study the Arctic Circle Assembly, a major international conference sponsored by the Government of Iceland to facilitate collaborative opportunities between governments and non-state actors. ey nd that early Arctic Circle Assembly events focused on "development, energy, security, research and science, challenges, cooperation and businesses," but not necessarily Indigenous Peoples. 9 is article seeks to add to this earlier research by explicitly studying the description of Inuit in government discourse about the Arctic Council. Extensive literature regarding discourse around Indigenous Peoples often focuses on depictions of Indigenous culture in education materials and government rhetoric; a major nding in this literature is that government discourse is often problematic. e current literature about Indigenous Peoples in the AC examines their role, in uence, and power, but not explicitly discourses and frames (i.e., the signi cance and limits of the language used). 10 Beyond literature on the AC, Robert Harding nds that, historically, a dominant media discourse regarding Indigenous Peoples is that they represent a threat to Canada, in ways both implicit and explicit. 11 Whitney Lackenbauer nds that media reports frequently mischaracterize the role and powers of the Canadian Rangers (reserves of the Canadian armed forces), the majority of whom are Indigenous. 12 Peter Nines uncovers that Australian and Canadian textbooks describing Indigenous lifestyles sometimes include language that might inadvertently reinforce negative stereotypes (such as their way of life being "traditional"). 13 Writers have been critical that government discourse on Indigenous Peoples draws distinctions between Indigenous people living on reserves and urban centres when discussing their rights. 14 In contrast, M. Lynn Aylward argues that elements of Inuit culture and practices are common in the curriculum of Nunavut despite the Western epistemological basis of the material. 15 Looking beyond the AC, existing literature on discourse nds that government rhetoric often problematizes the role of Indigenous Peoples in history and Canadian society. e research reported in this article helps uncover whether these themes carry forward to discourse on the AC.
Inuit critiques of existing research and discourse on Indigenous Peoples emphasize that interactions in the Arctic region should re ect Inuit Knowledge and priorities. Proponents of community-based research call for information exchanges that are authentic, 16 co-created, mutually bene cial, and organically constructed, 17 while developing local capacity and partnerships. 18 ese relationships must arise through experience over time 19 and be collaborative with community members. 20 e research often includes strategies for community dissemination. 21 Pitseolak Pfeifer writes, Arctic research must ensure that 1) Inuit knowledge and everyday practices on the land are recognized as a qualitative mode of inquiry producing scienti c evidence, and 2) Western ethical research and publication standards do not exclude recognition of Inuit communities (i.e., hunters, harvesters, and Knowledge Keepers) as equally valid references. 22 e largest organization that domestically represents Inuit who live in Canada, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, says, "Current policies that structure federal Inuit Nunangat research funding processes tend to curtail Inuit self-determination in research and consequently marginalize Inuit research priorities." 23 ey continue, " is hampers our collective ability to document and create the knowledge required to more eff ectively address the needs of our people." 24 A dominant theme in this literature is that Indigenous Peoples must be partners and leaders in developing Arctic research. is article examines whether this theme of collaboration carries forward to discourse on the AC.
Method is article undertakes a discourse analysis that examines the narrative around permanent participants. It examines eighteen key documents that describe the role of Inuit. Documents include: 1) all of the existing up-to-date Arctic Council documents that describe its role and structure, chosen from the complete set of documents available online; 25 2) all of the most recent annual reports from the Inuit Circumpolar Council that describe the role and activities of the group, also available online; 26 and 3) the most recent national Arctic strategies from Canada, Denmark, Russia, and the United States, which discuss offi cial policies on the AC and Indigenous Peoples. Table 1 summarizes these documents. e goal was to choose the most important documents out of all documents available. e explicit and implicit meanings of the words used are the diagnostic variable of this research. Discourse analysis has shortcomings in that it often assumes that descriptions and rhetoric re ect real positions and policy; this research assumes, based on previously summarized work by Landriault, that discourse can shape our understandings regardless of intent. is article focuses speci cally on Inuit and on policy currently in eff ect.
To complete the analysis, the words "Inuit," "Indigenous," and "Permanent Participant" were searched in the documents using a standard word processor and the wording employed was noted, summarized below. I noted, for example, whether the documents describe Inuit as leaders, contributors, or participants. is diff erence in language, between "participant" and "contributor," is not a passive variation; participation involves taking part in something, while contributing involves supplying something of signi cance. To say that Inuit contribute means that they supply something that impacts the outcome of a process; to say that Inuit participate means they share in a process. For example, the Canadian Oxford Dictionary (2004) de nes "participate" as, "To share or take part in"; "contribute" means, "Give (money, an idea, help, etc.) towards a common purpose; help to bring about a result." A contribution is greater than mere participation, with or without being described as "active." Table 2 summarizes these results.
Analysis e Arctic Council Arctic Council documents frequently indicate that Indigenous Peoples are participants and consultants, as opposed to contributors; however, these documents acknowledge that their contributions are important. e AC has created two documents intended to be a reference for those who are not familiar with the institution; neither identi es Indigenous Peoples as leaders.
e document e Arctic Council: A Backgrounder (2017) says, " e category of Permanent Participant was created to provide for active participation and full consultation with the Arctic Indigenous Peoples within the Council." 27 As per a Quick Guide To the Arctic Council (2019), " e eight Arctic States together with the six Arctic Indigenous Peoples' Organizations have achieved mutual understanding and trust, addressed issues of common concern, strengthened cooperation, and in uenced international action." 28 It adds, "Moreover, the cooperation with Arctic Council Observers and other stakeholders is essential to tackle the interconnected eff ects of Arctic change." 29 e document that established the role of Indigenous Peoples in the Arctic Council (the 1996 Ottawa Declaration) acknowledges in its preamble the importance of the role these groups can play in the region: "Recognizing traditional knowledge of the [I]ndigenous people of the Arctic and their communities and taking note of its importance and that of Arctic science and research to the collective understanding of the circumpolar Arctic." 30 Overall, however, the AC does not use the word "leadership" to describe Indigenous Peoples; it describes them as participants or consultants. ese documents clearly frame that states lead the AC.
Recent documents continue these trends. An update to the rst articulation of the role of Indigenous Peoples, created to mark the twentieth anniversary of the AC (in the 2017 e Arctic Council: A Forum for Peace and Cooperation), indicates that states intend to work together with these groups: " e success of the Arctic Council can also be attributed to the active participation of the [I] ndigenous Permanent Participants"; "On this twentieth anniversary of the Arctic Council, we the Arctic States reaffi rm our commitment to the principles of the Ottawa Declaration, to work together and with the [Indigenous Permanent Participants], and to promote prosperity, development, and environmental sustainability for the bene t of generations to come." 31 e Arctic Council Rules of Procedure (1998, updated 2013 and 2016) clearly indicate that the role of Indigenous Peoples is to participate: "Arctic States and Permanent Participants may participate in all meetings and activities of the Arctic Council, and may be represented by a head of delegation and such other representatives as each Arctic State and Permanent Participant deems necessary." 32 In 2019, the Government of Iceland released a chairmanship program for the AC, laying out broad goals for the future. It identi ed permanent participants as key consultants with whom states must work: "In partnership with the other Member States and Permanent Participants, the Chairmanship will continue supporting many ongoing activities of Working Groups and other subsidiary bodies, as well as introducing a number of new projects in the Arctic Council work plan for 2019-2021." 33 It says, "Close consultations between the Member States and the Permanent Participants must continue." 34 It indicates that Inuit have involvement in governance of the institution: "Decisions are taken by consensus among the eight Arctic Council States, with full consultation and involvement of the Permanent Participants." 35 Overall, offi cial AC documents are fairly conservative when describing the role of Inuit in the Arctic region, and Indigenous Peoples in general, but are not entirely problematic. ey describe these groups as participants in the AC, which is accurate in terms of their formal role as permanent participants.  e Canadian branch of the Inuit Circumpolar Council (ICC) is more likely to describe Inuit as leaders in Arctic governance, painting a picture of the ICC as a contributor to solving important regional issues. Its 2014-2015 Annual Report said, "ICC Canada continues to play a strong leadership role within the Arctic Council." 36 It goes on, " e work undertaken by ICC Canada on behalf of Canadian Inuit and in collaboration with other ICC offi ces in the 8-state Arctic Council is at both the technical and political levels." 37 e 2018-2019 Annual Report clearly indicates that the ICC is a leader in the AC: "ICC has continued its leadership on suicide prevention and mental wellness initiatives within the Arctic Council." 38 e report also emphasizes that the group plays an important role: " e ICC (Canada) President also noted that ICC represents over 160,000 Inuit voices from four countries and is a strong voice for Inuit rights at the Arctic Council, holding well-respected Permanent Participant status" 39 ; and "ICC also actively uses its Consultative Status within the United Nations." 40 e report also says, " e Arctic Council is a platform for Inuit voices to be heard in the Arctic and globally." 41 It continues, "ICC (Canada) participation is supported by a multiyear Global Aff airs Canada agreement which allows the organization to secure other government funding [and] allows ICC (Canada) to leverage support from non-government funders." 42 However, ICC discourse does mirror AC descriptions of the group to an extent, sometimes describing the group as a participant. Annual reports from 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 both contain this description: " e Indigenous Peoples in the respective countries have active participation and full consultation as Permanent Participants." 43 Overall, the most progressive descriptions of the leadership role of Indigenous Peoples in Arctic governance come from descriptions found in documents form the ICC; they use the word "leadership" when describing their role.
e ICC website includes a description of its work in the AC, which paints the group as a leader by emphasizing its role in the founding of the AC. e site says, "We are proud of the work we have done towards the creation of the Arctic Council in 1996, notably the eff orts of former ICC Chair Mary Simon." 44 It also says, "In fact, it was founded in Ottawa, and Canada was the rst Chair from 1996-1998." 45 A major statement on the role of Indigenous Peoples in Arctic governance occurred at the May 2019 meetings of the AC. e president of ICC Alaska, Jimmy Stotts, said, "Participation is one thing, having in uence is another." 46 He elaborated, " e term meaningful engagement has a diff erent meaning for the Arctic states than it does for the Permanent Participants." 47 He set out a set of priorities for the AC: We would like to see the Arctic Council address some of the issues important to us: wildlife management and food security; the infrastructure and social services de cit; physical and environmental health issues, including the horror of suicide; and culture and language protection. It's time to address the problems faced by Arctic [I]ndigenous communities. It's time to seriously listen to the solutions off ered by ICC and the other Permanent Participants. It's time to use Indigenous Knowledge as called for at the beginning of the Arctic Council. 48 Overall, the ICC describes itself as a leader possessing in uence in Arctic governance and the AC on a fairly consistent basis; the AC does not describe the role in this way, however, demonstrating discordance in framing. e ICC does not always describe itself as a leader in the AC, but it does so more than states.

Governments
e national Arctic strategies for the governments of Canada and Denmark describe Indigenous Peoples not as participants, contributors, or leaders, but rather as partners. Canada's "Arctic and Northern Policy Framework International Chapter" (2019) uses the word partner in several instances. It says, " is arrangement has been crucial to the Arctic Council's success, as it ensures Indigenous voices are heard and re ected in Arctic Council deliberations and decisions." 49 It also says, for example, We will take an active role in supporting the development of a pan-Arctic network of marine protected areas at the Arctic Council and we will continue to partner with Indigenous Peoples to recognize and manage culturally and environmentally signi cant areas and pursue additional conservation measures, including those led through Indigenous management authorities. 50 Denmark's Kingdom of Denmark Strategy for the Arctic 2011-2020 (2011) also describes a partnership that gives Indigenous Peoples signi cant independence and self-determination: "Denmark and Greenland will continue constructive cooperation to strengthen [I]ndigenous Peoples' rights to control their own development and their own political, economic, social and cultural situation." 51 It also says, "Indigenous Peoples in the Arctic to a larger extent should be involved in research, health promotion and prevention." 52 e descriptions from Canada and Denmark are fairly progressive, describing Inuit as an active contributor to government initiatives. e governments of Russia and the United States both barely mention Inuit or Indigenous Peoples in their offi cial state positions, each with only a few mentions. Russia's "Basics of the State Policy of the Russian Federation in the Arctic for the Period till 2020 and for a Further Perspective" (2009) mentions Indigenous Peoples only in three instances and does not mention Inuit at all. It says that a goal is "improvement of quality of life of the indigenous population and social conditions of economic activities in the Arctic." 53 None of these instances describe Inuit as contributors or leaders. e most up-to-date articulation of United States Arctic policy is in the 2019 Report to Congress: Department of Defense Arctic Strategy and the 2016 Report on Arctic Policy: International Security Advisory Board. Between these two documents, there are only two mentions of Indigenous Peoples, pledging engagement with these communities. Once again, there is no description of Inuit as leaders in these documents. 54 Overall, the governments of Canada and Denmark are more expansive in their description of Indigenous Peoples in Arctic governance, indicating that Indigenous organizations and people are partners with domestic governments. ey depict these groups as being separate from sovereign states to an extent. e governments of Russia and the United States are more notable for what they do not say. ey barely mention Indigenous Peoples in Arctic governance and do not clearly assign a role for these actors. Table 2 reveals some trends. Arctic Council documents do not describe Inuit or Indigenous Peoples' organizations as leaders-they are participants in three of the documents examined and consultants in another. e other two documents consulted do not use the word "leadership" to describe Indigenous Peoples. e ICC describes itself as a leader in the AC in three documents. Two others describe a strong voice and meaningful participation. Two other documents are in line with AC documents; one other emphasizes the leadership role the ICC has played in creating the AC. Finally, the governments of Canada and Denmark describe Indigenous Peoples as partners, and the governments of Russia and the United States do not.

Conclusion
How does the Arctic Council itself characterize the status of Inuit, and permanent participants in general? Offi cial AC documents describe permanent participants fairly conservatively, as groups that participate in the institution. However, the descriptions are not problematic. ey do not describe these groups as passive actors; they identify their role as "active," "essential," and of "importance." e description is accurate given the current formal position of Inuit in the AC as permanent participants through the Inuit Circumpolar Council. In explaining institutional success, the AC indicates that cooperation with Indigenous Peoples is important, and necessary to address issues in the future. More recent AC documents are a bit more liberal in describing the role of Indigenous Peoples, using words like "involvement" and "consultation." How do the governments of Canada, Denmark, Russia, and the United States describe the participation of Inuit in Arctic governance? A contrast is present in offi cial government policy from Canada and Denmark, putting Inuit forward as partners in governance and the region overall. Government policy from Canada and Denmark assert a commitment to be partners with Indigenous Peoples. ey indicate that Inuit and Indigenous Peoples have a right to involvement in decisions impacting their interests. Meanwhile, documents from the governments of Russia and the United States mention Indigenous Peoples only brie y. However, none of the eleven documents examined from governments and the AC used a word related to leadership to describe Inuit or any other Arctic Indigenous group.
How does the Inuit Circumpolar Council depict its position in the AC, and by extension the position of other Indigenous Peoples? Inuit themselves, through the primary advocacy organization delegated to speak on their behalf (the ICC), often emphasize their leadership in the region and their important contributions. Of the seven documents examined, depictions of Inuit as important leaders in solving regional issues are not diffi cult to nd. e documents describe Inuit as working in "collaboration" with "leadership" and "a strong voice for Inuit rights." ey also describe the AC as a "platform" to further Inuit rights that Inuit helped to create. Nonetheless, there are several depictions of Inuit that are in line with that which we see in government and AC documents. Inuit portray their activities in a way that emphasizes their role as contributors to Arctic governance. Statements from Inuit have indicated that their role in the aff airs of the AC should be greater.
Why is this information signi cant? What are directions for future research? It may seem obvious that Inuit would describe their role more liberally than would states; they have made many important contributions to the AC, such as previously mentioned contributions to the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment. Yet, given their unique role in the AC, and general international rhetoric to recognize and empower Indigenous Peoples, we might nd state conservatism somewhat surprising. Advocates for Indigenous rights may nd this conclusion disappointing. State rhetoric ascribes more traditional labels to the permanent participants, as organizations that participate but do not provide the same leadership roles in international institutions as do states. However, we do not nd the type of problematic rhetoric found in previous studies looking at items such as government textbooks. Inuit describe their activities in terms that put them in the same category as states, to which we can ascribe certain sovereignty and rights in the international system. ese descriptions are similar to the type of language found in literature about the role of Inuit in research about their home region. From this situation, we can draw a rhetorical disconnect. While the AC usually is a collaborative and cooperative body, the lack of recognition for the role of Indigenous Peoples in general could be a source of disagreement and tension in the future.
Previous research (such as work by Landriault) has demonstrated that the language used about Indigenous Peoples can impact the way people think about Indigenous organizations and their in uence. It is reasonable to speculate that more depictions describing Inuit as leaders in the Arctic Council are likely to increase their perceived legitimacy in the region among the general public. is work does not examine the sources of discourse around Indigenous Peoples, the motivation of actors for this discourse, or the speci c leadership activities of Indigenous Peoples in Arctic governance. It limits the analysis to one Indigenous group, Inuit; future research might study other Indigenous Peoples and permanent participants. It also focuses speci cally on policy currently in eff ect; future work might examine historical institutions such as the Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy.
Future research can examine whether descriptions of Indigenous Peoples as participants in processes, rather than as contributors, impacts public or individual perceptions of their power. Governments increasingly pledge to work constructively with Indigenous Peoples as an important goal in reconciliation in the post-colonial context. is work shows that discourse from governments lags behind that from Indigenous Peoples themselves.