“What kind of peace should be imagined when speaking of a “restored” Arctic exceptionalism?” read the newest opinion piece by Eda Ayaydin, Post-Doc at MIARC and Visiting Fellow at the Mershon Center, Ohio State University published in High North News.
“Arctic exceptionalism was never a legal framework but a political narrative and perhaps, it will be again.”
What it is?
(…)
“Based on discussions at the recent event in DC [Restoring Arctic Exceptionalism, followed by a high-level conference in Washington, D.C., hosted by the Quincy Institute and The Arctic Institute], at least three dominant narratives appear to shape current understanding. Grounded not only in power, but in engagement; not only in interests, but in empathy.
The first focuses on how climate change impacts the region, framing it as a driver of political, security and environmental challenges, relying on overly direct causal reasoning that bypasses nuances and fails to meaningfully include indigenous and local communities.
The second emphasizes the necessity of categorizing cooperation and security beyond military frameworks. The third is the indigenous conceptualization of exceptionalism, which centers on nature, relationality, and empathy.
The sense of relational interdependence is precisely what opens the door to a new Arctic exceptionalism, one grounded not only in power, but in engagement; not only in interests, but in empathy.”
