108
Arctic Yearbook 2015
protection of indigenous peoples’ rights and identity” (Naalakkersuisut 2013a: 24. Authors’
translation), as they are still threatened by “[d]iscriminatory legislation, dominant cultural majorities
and lack of recognition” (ibid.). Whether this also concerns the Greenlandic language is not crystal
clear from the information publicly available, but the adoption of an official language policy underlines
that: “The Greenlandic language is a central part of the Greenlandic people’s cultural identity. The
language has a culture-bearing function that shall be preserved, strengthened and simultaneously
developed” (EM2009/88:1. Author’s translation). This mirrors Greenland’s special position within
the international indigenous network, well exemplified by Kuupik Kleist’s speech at the EMRIP
annual meeting in 2009 where he emphasised that the introduction of self-government is a “[…] de
facto implementation of the declaration of indigenous peoples’ rights” (Naalakkersuisut 2010: 22.
Author’s translation) and that “[…] the experiences of Greenland’s process can serve as inspiration
for others of the world’s indigenous peoples in their struggle for greater autonomy and in their
development as a people” (ibid.: 23). Such a statement indirectly excludes people who are not
indigenous but still perceive themselves as part of the Greenland nation and, thus, the statement
represents a static or more ethno national perception of what it means to have a true Greenlandic
identity. The positioning of Greenlanders as a minority in these forums is furthermore a relic from
the past when Greenland did not have self-government and is as such more retrospective than
prospective.
The communication made under the auspices of Nordic Council is contrary to the communication in
the UN forums, as ‘equality’ and ‘independence’ rather than ‘minority’ are the subject positions used
to portray Greenlanders desirable position. In 2006, the Nordic Council adopted a declaration on
Nordic language policy, which distinguishes between ‘community bearing’ languages - consisting of
Faroese, Greenlandic, Sami, Danish, Finnish, Icelandic, Norwegian and Swedish - and ‘state bearing’
languages that leave out the first three (Norden 2006: 11). Thus, there is a clear hierarchical line, which
would have been more likely to be accepted if the non-state entities’ underlying logic was based on
indigenous peoples’ rights and the subject position ascribed to their citizens was ‘minority’. By
observing the statements made concerning the status of the Greenlandic language (cf. Jacobsen 2014:
39-41), it is, however, evident that this is definitely not the case. Instead, Greenland’s representatives
plead for a position equivalent to the official states’ and a discontent over the lower status of the
Greenlandic language has often been used for raising questions over Greenland’s general lower
position in the Nordic Council hierarchy. As a result of this persistent engagement then Premier Aleqa
Hammond was invited to join the Prime Ministers’ annual summer meeting in 2014 (Sommer 2014).
This was a clear indication of higher status, a step towards the announced vision of future full
membership (Nordisk Råd 2013) and in line with Greenland’s foreign policy strategy from 2011 which
describes direct participation in the Nordic Council as important because it “[…] can generate results
that support the general foreign policy work” (Naalakkersuisut 2011: 21. Author’s translation). An
important fact for this successful development was the establishment of a strategic partnership with
Åland and the Faroese Islands in 2012 that gives the three autonomous areas the authority to speak
on behalf of each other (lagtinget.aland.fi); a partnership, which a Naalakkersuisut foreign policy
report described as “a pivotal development of Greenland’s foreign relations” (Naalakkersuisut 2013a:
12 – author’s translation).
The Power of Collective Identity Narration