BookReviews03.indd 211Book reviews 2004: Polar Research 23(2), 209–213 one sighting card were provided. Voluntary census takers also want to know where the data they have collected end up. A free-text search for “Marine Mammals” or “Svalbard” on the Nor- wegian Polar Institute website gives no hits. This doesn’t detract from the book in any way, but people would be more eager to send in observa- tions if they could trace their contributions in the ongoing data compilation. The book is good and makes you hungry for more. It is also refreshing that the book keeps to the point, but what is the purpose of the map on page 1? Why not a map showing the ranges of the animals the book is about? Moreover, hunt- ing of marine mammals has dominated Svalbard’s history from the early whaling days to the polar bear hunting of modern times. Hunting in Sval- bard and its devastating effect on these mammals would have been a more interesting topic than general comments about bowhead whales, Stel- ler’s sea cow and sea otters. The sections on seals and whales should both begin with a few gener- al words concerning the relationships between the species and their evolution. The text is packed with interesting information, but a discussion of the future is called for: not just the future of the whales but of all Svalbard’s marine mammals. If the ice at the North Pole melts away, will there still be polar bears in Svalbard? How many polar bears have been killed since they became protected? Tourists ask a lot of questions; the authors would surely be able to provide answers. Hopefully the next edition can provide indica- tions of size for the whales on the identifi cation sheet. Are they all rendered at the same scale? Greater consistency in presenting the whales’ weight and size in text would make reading easier. For instance, it would be interesting to know where the fi gure 200 tonnes for the blue whale comes from, and what the average weight is. Could the authors provide a few more references? As the number of tourists grows, it would be worthwhile listing the names of the whales in even more lan- guages. The book is so good no nature-loving tourist going to Svalbard should be without it. For people like myself, who guide tourists in experiencing Svalbard’s fauna, the book is a gold mine, with its logical structure and clear text. It is afforda- ble, easy to take along, and answers the questions. And when the sighting reports start coming in, it will hopefully lead to better knowledge about the marine mammals of Svalbard. Review of Negotiating the Arctic: The Construction of an International Region, by E. C. H. Keskitalo (2004). New York and London: Routledge. 282 pp. ISBN 0-415-94712-X. Oran R. Young Bren School of Environmental Science and Manage- ment. University of California (Santa Barbara), 4518 Bren Hall, UCSB, Santa Barbara, CA 93106-5131, USA. Since the waning of the cold war during the late 1980s, the Arctic has emerged as a lively arena for initiatives designed to promote international coop- eration. These initiatives take a variety of forms. Some, like the Arctic Environmental Protec- tion Strategy (AEPS) and its successor the Arctic Council (AC), involve intergovernmental agree- ments. Others, such as the Northern Forum (NF), are collaborative efforts on the part of subnation- al units of government (e.g. counties, provinces, states). Still others, like the International Arctic Science Committee (IASC), the University of the Arctic (UArctic), and the Inuit Circumpolar Con- ference (ICC), feature efforts on the part of non- governmental bodies to infl uence the course of transnational relations. How can we explain this development? And what are the prospects for a broadening and deep- ening of Arctic cooperation during the foreseeable future? This intriguing, albeit sometimes diffi cult and frustrating, book seeks to answer these ques- tions by focusing on the idea of region-building, deploying the methods of social constructivism, and making liberal use of discourse analysis. The result is an analysis that has the salutary effect of making us stop to think about the underpinnings of cooperation in the Arctic, even though it may have little impact on the actual course of events in this dynamic region. Is there an Arctic discourse? What methods are appropriate for answering this question? Kes- kitalo’s central argument is that such a discourse has emerged during the last 20-30 years and that it refl ects in large measure the views and perspec- tives of Canada and, to a lesser degree, those of the ICC (treated as a partner of Canada with regard to circumpolar issues). The evidence underlying this 212 Book reviews proposition deals, for the most part, with the deter- mination of appropriate boundaries for the Arctic as a region and the framing of the Arctic policy agenda in terms of issues involving environmental protection, indigenous claims, and frontier devel- opment. Although the story Keskitalo unfolds regarding the emergence of an Arctic discourse is intriguing, I am not convinced that the evidence supporting this line of analysis is compelling. It is true that there is a kind of disconnect between North Amer- ican and Russian perspectives on the Arctic on the one hand and European perspectives on the other. But the boundaries of this emerging region owe as much to the effects of political manoeuvering and the preferences of those working on issues of pollu- tion and the conservation of fl ora and fauna as they do to the success of Canada in dictating the bound- aries of the region. Far from achieving consen- sus regarding the framing of issues on the Arctic agenda, those active in arenas like the AC and the NF still tend to talk past each other in extolling the relative merits of environmental protection and sustainable development as conceptual lenses for the analysis of Arctic issues. What is more, par- ticipants in these processes are often struck by the diffi culty Canada has in arriving at a national con- sensus regarding Arctic issues, much less induc- ing others to buy into Canadian ways of thinking in this realm. Above all, Keskitalo’s account of the emerging Arctic discourse offers no mechanism for structur- ing or disciplining thought regarding appropriate ways to resolve issues of environmental protection and sustainable development under conditions pre- vailing in the Arctic. As those of us who are active in AC and NF meetings know all too well, efforts to promote transboundary cooperation in the Arctic often refl ect a cacophony of voices rather than the application of a coherent discourse to a more or less well-defi ned collection of issues. How can we explain the emergence of the Arctic as a distinct region in international society over the last two or three decades? To answer this ques- tion Keskitalo develops the argument that Canada (along with the ICC) has acted as the pivotal player in this drama, with the result that the Arctic agenda is really a Canadian agenda for what Canadians (as well as some Europeans) call the “northern dimen- sion”. Without doubt Canada has played a prominent role in the evolution of transbounday cooperation in the Arctic. With Russia preoccupied with inter- nal issues, the United States dragging its feet, and the Nordics possessing limited capacity to call the shots, Canada has taken the lead at a number of key points in the development of international coopera- tion in the Arctic. As Keskitalo correctly observes, Canadian leadership was particularly important during the mid 1990s in the run-up to and immedi- ate aftermath of the creation of the AC. Even so, I fi nd the case for Canadian dominance in this process somewhat unconvincing. It is easy to fi nd examples of proactive leadership on the part of other players, as in the role Finland played in the process leading to the establishment of the AEPS in 1991. Whenever the United States (and to a lesser degree Russia) becomes annoyed and resists the placement of important issues (e.g. issues relat- ing to the harvesting of marine mammals) on the Arctic agenda, Canada has little choice but to back down. Canada itself is a multi-cultural soci- ety most of whose citizens have little knowledge of or interest in the Arctic, even as they ritually repeat the dogma of “the true North strong and free” enshrined in their national anthem. In short, Canada lacks the power and (often) the will that constitute critical ingredients in successful efforts to impose a discourse on others. Canada has played an active role in settings like the AC. But as soon as its initiatives run into opposition, the limits of Canada’s ability to infl uence the course of Arctic affairs become apparent. What are the consequences of region-building in the Arctic and the spread of the ideas that go with it? A persistent subtext of Keskitalo’s analysis of Cana- dian infl uence is the proposition that the emerging Arctic discourse overlooks or even clashes with the geographical, social, and political realities of Fennoscandia and the Nordic world more general- ly. If I understand her correctly, she regards this as a signifi cant fl aw in Arctic region-building. But is this a fair assessment? Finland has played a key role in framing numerous issues of environmental protection in the Arctic. Finland and Norway have emerged as the mainstays of support for the Uni- versity of the Arctic. Denmark has taken the lead in nurturing and supporting the Indigenous Peo- ples Secretariat, which now plays a critical role in facilitating the participation of indigenous peoples in the AC. Iceland has assumed a highly proactive role as the current chair of the AC. What is more, there are undeniable similarities between the Nordics and the other Arctic states when it comes to the problems of maintaining vital human settlements in their northern peripheries. 213Book reviews 2004: Polar Research 23(2), 209–213 Even relatively centralized countries like Norway and Sweden have struggled with this well-known feature of core–periphery relations. I do not mean to suggest that Keskitalo is wrong to emphasize the differences between the Europe- an Arctic and the Northern American Arctic and the Russian Arctic. But I believe it would be incor- rect to infer from an account of these differences that Nordic policymaking regarding Arctic issues has been highjacked by the Canadians. There are perfectly good interest-based explanations for the active participation of countries like Finland and Norway in Arctic region-building. There is also considerable variation among the Nordic countries in this realm. For instance, Sweden, which has a particularly strong interest in Baltic cooperation, has played a more subdued role in the AC than Fin- land and Norway. In my experience, Scandinavi- ans active in bodies like the AC show no signs of suffering from false consciousness regarding the virtues of region-building in the Arctic. What can we say about the future of Arctic region-building? Although she does not address the issue directly, Keskitalo’s analysis is suggestive with regard to this question. Converging or congru- ent interests can suffi ce to trigger specifi c devel- opments like the creation of the AC and the NF. But regions tend to gel and become lasting politi- cal arenas when they give rise to social practices and take on a life of their own that transcends the interplay of well-defi ned interests among individu- al members. Whatever its provenance, the growth of an effective Arctic discourse could play a cru- cial role in these terms. From this vantage point, the future of region- building in the Arctic is hard to forecast at this stage. Interest-based initiatives have produced a level of international cooperation in the Arctic that goes well beyond what most of us could have antic- ipated twenty years ago. Yet I would argue that Arctic cooperation remains relatively fragile, pre- cisely because it is based largely on convergent but transient interests in contrast to shared experiences in the past and a shared vision of the future. Would the continuation of region-building in the Arctic be a good thing? Where you stand concern- ing this question undoubtedly depends on where you sit. The development of social practices never yields perfectly symmetrical results. Even in cases that produce gains for all parties concerned, some participants are apt to be bigger winners than others. If I read her correctly, Keskitalo is troubled by the thought that Canadian dominance might marginalize the Nordic countries in Arctic region- building and, in the process, box them into a social practice that fails to serve them well over the long run. Keskitalo is undoubtedly right to draw our atten- tion to the impacts of ideas on interests in evalu- ating the consequences of Arctic region-building. But here, too, I am skeptical about the argument as presented. My perception is that most Nordic poli- cymakers are generally positively disposed toward Arctic region-building and that they know exactly what they are doing in this regard. Of course, it is possible that they will experience a rude awaken- ing regarding this issue somewhere down the line. But I doubt it. For the most part, Keskitalo’s scholarship is excellent. She has done a commendable job of tracking down primary sources, and she uses them to good advantage. Nonetheless, minor inaccu- racies creep into her text from time to time. The U.S. Arctic Research and Policy Act of 1984 did not mandate the work of the Committee on Arctic Social Sciences, which I co-chaired (p. 41). The 1973 Calder Case involving the land claims of abo- riginal peoples in Canada did not deal with the con- troversy over a proposed pipeline in the Mackenzie Valley corridor (p. 133). Canada did not take the lead in the creation of the NF (p. 160); the governor of Alaska organized a conference held in Anchor- age during 1990 that provided the impetus for the establishment of the NF. In addition, the text of this book is often rather opaque, making the thread of the argument dif- fi cult to follow in some places. This book would have benefi ted greatly from attention on the part of an English-speaking copyeditor. Still, it would be wrong to make too much of these shortcomings. Although it is apparent from what I have said that I am not persuaded by some of the principal arguments of this book, I am con- vinced that it is a useful addition to the literature on international cooperation in the Arctic. Most of the existing literature in this realm refl ects a some- what naive enthusiasm for region-building in the Far North. Keskitalo has brought fresh eyes to this topic and developed an argument that requires us to stop and think about the origins and consequenc- es of international cooperation in the Arctic. While others may join me in responding skeptically to specifi c arguments presented, their understanding of what is at stake in the Arctic will be sharpened substantially as they work their way through the analysis set forth in Negotiating the Arctic.