Sámi: the only indigenous people in the EU

Miina Hiilloskivi

The Sámi are the only indigenous people the European Union. Inhabiting the Arctic area of Sápmi in northern Norway, Sweden, Finland, and the Kola Peninsula of Russia, the total Sámi population stands at around 75,000, of which the majority lives in Norway. Within this diverse group, there exists ten different Sámi languages - all of which are endangered. In spite of the ancient ties this indigenous people has to the land of these regions, there exists a long and sad history of discrimination towards the Sámi, which is marked by active suppression of their language and culture. Despite gradual progress over the past century, systematic oppression by centralised Nordic governments has scarred the Sámi population permanently.

Today Finland, Sweden and Norway have Sámi Parliaments which function as institutions defending the cultural autonomy of the Sámi people. In all these Nordic countries, the Sámi are legally recognised as an indigenous people, giving them the right to maintain their own language and culture. National legislation concerning the right to use Sámi languages in institutions of authority and education has been brought into force. Co-operation has also been established between Sámi organisations in Sámiráđđi, the Sámi Council, which unified the disparate Sámi clans to create a united front fighting for the representation of the Sámi.

The traditional Sámi livelihoods include reindeer husbandry, fishing, hunting, gathering, and handicrafts, and are all based on the sustainable use of natural resources. Their diet and habits are shaped by the environment, resulting in a traditionally nomadic lifestyle with loose and unofficial ties to the land. Indeed, today the core of the disputes with the Sámi is focused on land use rights. The issue lies in the fact that Sámi society is based on an oral culture, meaning that there is little to no written proof of ownership of the land that has been inhabited and used for generations. Even in cases where land use rights are recognised, there is limited legal protection as the richness of natural resources in these areas, such as iron ore, nickel and timber, often lead to Sámi interests being overlooked.

Out of the three countries, Norway is the only one to have ratified what seems to be the most significant international agreement concerning the rights of indigenous groups: the ILO Convention 169 Concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples. Articles 14 and 15 concern the right of indigenous people to own water, land and natural resources. These propose identifying and delimiting the land traditionally occupied by the Sámi in order to protect their ownership of the land. This vital agreement would not only eliminate costly court disputes over land use but also help to preserve this indigenous culture that is based on sustainable use of natural resources.

Indeed, it is shocking that Sweden and Finland are still not showing signs of ratifying the convention, despite overwhelming calls to do so. The role of the EU in particular in pushing for indigenous people’s rights should not be underestimated. The European Council's criticism of Finland in 2011 for not having ratified the Convention aided significantly in increasing the pressure on the Finnish government to revaluate their policy towards Sámi. If the EU continued such measures, the highlighting of the systematic discrimination of an ethnic minority could seriously damage the international reputation of Nordic countries, and the added international pressure could speed up the process of ratification.

The support of the EU has the potential to become significant force in the fight for Sámi people’s rights, of which the calling out the Nordic countries’ failings would comprise just the first step of a long road.

Denmark seizes migrant assets

Hubert Cruz

On Tuesday (26 January), the Danish parliament overwhelmingly approved of a controversial new measure that would allow immigration authorities to seize assets that worth over 10000 kroner (£1000) from asylum seekers to cover the cost of their stay. In addition, several other policies were concurrently introduced to deter the influx of migrants. These include extending the waiting period for refugees to apply for family reunion from one year to three, and tightening conditions required for permanent residency permits.

The proposals have been strongly criticised by the United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR) as well as many human right organisations. They denounced the seizures as an affront to the dignity of refugees, while arguing the delay of family reunion was in breach of the European Convention of Human Rights. The Danish government defended the seizure of migrants’ assets, claiming that unemployed Danes also need to relinquish assets above a certain threshold before they become eligible for benefits.

The Danish parliament’s action follows a similar seizure policy in Switzerland and southern states of Germany. As migrants continue to enter Europe in record levels, countries have moved to adopt more restrictive policies to stem further inflows. Earlier this week, the interior ministers of member states of the European Union have signalled their intentions to temporarily suspend the Schengen Agreement, which allows free movement across most EU countries, after a meeting in Amsterdam.

Are the new Danish policies appropriate and justified? Is the Schengen Agreement all but certain to collapse? What is Europe’s best long-term response to this ongoing migrant crisis? Whatever your view, send it in - via Twitter, Facebook or our website. Here are a few pieces of news articles for you to find out more about the issue:

BBC – Migrant crisis: Why are countries taking refugees' valuables

The Independent – Denmark approves controversial refugee bill allowing police to seize asylum seekers' cash and valuables

Crimea: Settlement and the problem with historical context in questions of sovereignty

Christian Amos

One of the most frequent issues arising from questions of sovereignty is that of historical context vis-a-vis self-determination. When Woodrow Wilson put forward his Fourteen Points at the deliberations in 1918, his support for self-determination (if not consistently applied personally) appeared to many to be a powerful and decisive recognition of the ideal of the nation as ‘sovereign state', as fought for in 19th century literature and revolutions. The idea that a people, united by a common culture, language, or custom, should be able to govern themselves, is an important expression of liberty and its ideal. Stability is of course important, but the freedom of decision making, of self governance, is the very reason for stability in the first place — not the other way around.

What I argue is that the notion of self-determination has been applied inconsistently. Rather than respect the will of a people, commentators and governments often decline to accept self-determination when it conflicts with their own political pragmatic ends, even though this constitutes an inconsistent application of their own ideals.

Take Crimea, for example. Putin’s paramilitary sponsored invasion of Crimea can be seen as a gross violation of international law and a terrifying expression of thuggish, expansionist tendencies reminiscent of the 1930s. Amidst all the condemnation of Putin’s actions, and bewildering support of maverick sympathizers, what was lost was self-determination. Obama said in a 2014 press conference that the “United States supports [the Prime Minister of Ukraine’s] government’s efforts and stands for the sovereignty, territorial integrity and democratic future of Ukraine.” The issue of ‘territorial integrity’ if referring to safety from invasion is absolutely essential. Yet the ambiguity of the term ‘territorial integrity’ is reflective of popular attitudes towards the Ukraine and Crimea – that’s to say that this is black and white: either you sympathize with Russian annexation, or you support Crimea being a part of Ukraine in absolution regardless of consequences. Given controlled and comfortable conditions, it seems right to say that the people of Crimea should be allowed to have a democratic, monitored plebiscite on their sovereignty.

Of course the difficulty with a plebiscite is that status-quo in Crimea has been severely challenged and altered – people have left, fears have been raised, and others have migrated to the region. Principally, fears of Russian intervention or pressure from other powers would undoubtedly affect the outcome of any democratic vote. In that sense, perhaps any democratic vote on Crimean sovereignty, whether to be Ukrainian or Russian, is a flawed venture. With the passing of time perhaps a vote is more conceivable, but equally integration of Crimea into the Russian Federation may simply increase Russification in the region.

Alternatively, perhaps Crimea can serve as an important historical example – a warning of the dangers of rejecting tensions of sovereignty and regional identity, if we take it that that Crimean uncertainty over being part of Ukraine is a factor prior to Euromaidan. The 'possibility' of Crimeans feeling like they should be part of Russia rather Ukraine should be acknowledged and treated seriously, rather than written off as a far-fetched oddity. People all too often forget that Crimea was part of the Russian SFSR until 1954, but also that the Crimea was up to 50% ethnically Tartar in the 1920s – until Stalin’s policy of forced-deportation and violence decimated the population. Foreign policy should not be about suiting the interests of a particular nation, but should serve to peacefully and democratically enable the freedoms of groups of people – particularly when it comes to questions of self-determination.

Europe's Teetering Anchor: the destabilisation of Polish politics and its effect on Europe

On the surface, Poland's parliamentary elections in 2015 seemed to herald a continuation of the progressive and successful political climate that the country has enjoyed in the past few years. 

Poland's politics matter. Its geographical positioning and new-found political clout have made it the anchor between Eastern and Central Europe. Since joining the EU in 2004, the GDP per head in Poland has almost doubled and the country's prosperity, stability, and pro-European leaning in recent years have earned it both respect and sway in European affairs. The recent elections were also only the second in history to have more than three parties with female leadership candidates. Such statistics seemed to augur well for Poland's political future. 

In fact, the crushing victory for the Law and Justice Party (PiS) that resulted from October's elections has sent out tremors across Europe. Seismic waves of political instability have left social, cultural, political, and economic spheres shaken in Poland and beyond. 

The origins of the PiS find their roots in the anti-communist Solidarity trade union. The party favours an overtly conservative orientation and its success heralds a distinct swing to the right in Poland's politics. Founded by Lech and Jarosław Kaczyński in 2001, the party claims to be the champion of the Catholic Church in Poland. It opposes any legal recognition of same-sex couples and, in 2005, Jarosław Kaczyński publicly stated that, though homosexuals should not be isolated, they should nevertheless, "not be school teachers for example. Active homosexuals surely not, in any case". Mr Kaczynski also warns against the dangers of immigration and the influence of Islam on society, even going so far as to claim that Muslim migrants “carry diseases”.

Aside from regression in social policy, the PiS's success also seems a harbinger of regression in political and personal freedom. In an attempt to consolidate power, the PiS has sacked the heads of Poland's intelligence and security services, replacing them with reliable supporters. Moreover, on December 31st, the Polish government dismissed managers of the public television and radio broadcasters, TVP1 and Polskie Radio, promptly giving its own treasury minister the power to appoint their successors. In protest, since January 1st, Poland’s Radio 1 has been playing the Polish national anthem and Beethoven’s “Ode to Joy” (the anthem of the EU) alternately every hour. The image on the cover of Polish Newsweek of an eagle (Poland's national symbol) smashed and accompanied by the caption “The rape of Poland” aptly summed up the implications for the social liberty of a nation which had to wait till the 1990s to be permitted democracy.  Despite earning itself 18th position, ahead of the US, Britain, and France, in the index of World Press Freedom in 2015, Poland now faces widespread criticism from international freedom of speech groups. 

The effect on Poland's environmental policy has also proved negative. The new government is severely opposed to Europe’s climate policies and, despite the fact that 85% of the country's electricity is already supplied by coal-fired power stations, the PiS is obstinately set on building even more.

Previously one of Europe's greatest economic hopes, Poland's financial success in recent years may be jeopardized by the PiS's new policies. The solvency of the previous government is threatened by the PiS's plans to start paying child benefits to parents, to offer those over 75 free medication, and to reduce the retirement age. Clearly aimed at building on the PiS's ageing and conservative support base, these concessions not only overlook the poorest and most needy in Poland in favour of conservative loyalists, but also threaten Poland's recent economic growth.

The consequences for the refugee crisis also give the EU reason to fear. Plans by the European Commission to redistribute migrants across the EU faced opposition by many Eastern European countries, particularly Hungary. An agreement between the EU and the Eastern European nations was achieved only thanks to the support of Poland. But with the PiS in power, and their preoccupation with Polish rather than European concerns, the stability of this agreement is beginning to crumble. The recent upheavals in Poland's political situation therefore appear to be threatening to destabilise the EU's anchor in Eastern Europe, possibly even deepening the East-West divide in Europe. The future of Poland will bear on Europe as a whole, yet only time will tell what bearing this may be.  

Terror Attacks in Beirut, Baghdad and Paris

This weekend, terrorist attacks shocked the world as first Beirut and Baghdad then Paris as well were all struck by mass killings, all of which have been claimed by Da'esh, the organisation calling itself Islamic State. While much of the world has expressed solidarity with the victims, controversy is already growing over how the media treats terror attacks in the West compared with the Middle East, and there are fears of growing mistrust and resentment of refugees from the region, already seen amongst Republican candidates for President of the US.

Do the attacks mean the West should do more to fight Islamist terrorism - or is a major change in approach more necessary than ever? And does the reaction to the events say more about how we view the world than the human tragedy itself? Whatever your view, send it in - via Twitter, Facebook or our website. The contributors best insights will be invited to explore their views further for our journal Sir!