During my first year as a bachelor student in a renowned university frequently hosting talks by well known people, I listened to a talk by experts in national autonomy and independence processes. It was during the time when Catalonia was a hot topic, and a broader discussion on small-states and independence was relevant. At one point someone asked What about a place like Greenland? to which a panelist said What about it, who even lives there and the rest of the panelists and the room full of academics nodded. I was shocked and did the only thing I dared to do back then, stood up and left. This was my first encounter with the mainstream imaginary of the Arctic hinterlands.

This essay aims at clarifying who lives there, in Kalaallit Nunaat (Greenland), and discuss the recent resistance of Rare Earth mining when risking extensive environmental damage. It is a scratch in the surface of a complex and dividing issue with various important actors and components, which will be approached from a discussion on the reality of mining for the green technology revolution, and mining as a decolonial/colonial project. Subsequently, this discussion will be positioned within the context of control, care and conviviality in the politics of technology for sustainability inspired by the article by Arora et. al. 2020. To include the contemporary culture and spirit of Kalaallit Nunaat, two postal stamps illustrated by the Kalaaleq artists Martin Brand Hansen (2021) and Julie Edel
Hardenberg (2011) are included. Although arguably becoming outdated, postal services and consequently postal stamps are a symbol of interaction with and connectivity to the rest of the world and thus give insight into a nationally accepted image. 

Rare earth mining for sustainability?

Ironically, with the inland ice sheet melting rare earth mining in Kalaallit Nunaat has become a global quest for domination of the green future (Ewing, 2021; Naalakkersuisut 2021; Soer, 2022). This reality decided the result of the national governmental election in 2021, where a political coalition change took place and the winner party being Inuit Ataqatigiit whose main agenda was to stop a rare-earth mining project - the Kvanefjeld mine (Reuters 2022; Scheel, 2021). The
Kvanefjeld project owned by Greenland Minerals (a mainly Australian company) promised a billion dollar spillover to the country. However, although limited environmental impact was promised, the inevitable uranium that would be extracted alongside other minerals made the nation say Urani Naamik - no to uranium (Scheel, 2021). Greenland Minerals are threatening with a legal battle, but both the indigenous and non indigenous locals are not interested in selling the nature or trading their traditions, culture and livelihoods for green? capital (Ianucci 2022).

On the Greenland Minerals LDT website, the Kvanefjeld project seems like a logic step towards a green global future which simultaneously supports the local community, and has little negative environmental effects (GreenlandMinerals LDT). Such framing of mining projects in Greenland are consistent, where an image is created of a previously un-touched wast space of opportunities where
you can almost see the minerals waiting to be mined (Ianucci, 2022; Skidmore, 2022). As Harahan (2017) argues, the contemporary mainstream imaginary of Greenland reproduces the colonial patterns of 19th and 20th century Arctic explorers, now taking the shape of the neoliberal agenda (Harahan, 2017). The scramble for Greenland driven by neoliberal green colonialism is materialised
as extractives industries and justified by the Sustainable Development paradigm (ibid.; Menton et. al. 2020). The green technology revolution that is deemed necessary for a sustainable future needs rare-earth minerals. However, sustainable development strategies that aim for reaching the SDGs do
not automatically ensure ecological sustainability or environmental justice (Menton et. al. 2020).

There is especially a lack of proper integration of decolonial approaches within globally accepted approaches to the SDGs, which consequently risks (re)producing inequalities on local, national and international scales (ibid.). For example, Henriques and Bohm (2022) argue that the case of rareearth mining in Kalaallit Nunaat risks being a development path resulting in unequal ecological
exchange (Henriques, Bohm, 2022). While industrial countries want to decarbonising their economies and compete for dominance over the necessary minerals, Kalaallit Nunaat becomes a raw material provider and risks being left with ecological degradation and positioned at the periphery of global dominance over their own natural resources (Hararan, 2017; Henriques, Bohm, 2022). The disproportionate burden of responding to climate change on behalf of the world, while being one of the places most impacted by the reality the rest of the world fears is a locally recognised (Schreiber, 2018). Nevertheless, the global hegemonic framing of mining Kalaallit Nunaat to save the world from climate change prevails and economic growth continuous to dominate and push back ecological sustainability and decolonial environmental justice

Mining as autonomy?

One of the biggest arguments for the Kvanefjeld mine and other rare eath mining within Kalaallit Nunaat is economic growth and diversification, which can accelerate the independence process from Denmark (Farzan, 2021; Ewing, 2021). While mining does strengthen and diversify the economy, it also creates new dependencies (Hastrup, Brichet, 2021). While Henriques and Bohm (2022) stress the negative sides of such (re)colonial dependencies (Henriques, Bohm 2022),
Kalaallit Nunaat does allow mining without radioactive pollution, and applies it as a strategy for gaining more independence. However, they are wary of accepting such projects (Grydehøj, 2020; Hastrup, Brichet, 2021; Naalakkersuisut 2021). Overall, the discussion on mining as decolonial/colonial project seems paradoxical. One option is for Kalaallit Nunaat to follow its inhabitants wish
to restrict the negative environmental impact of mining and keep a so-called “weak” economy and fail to reach autonomy and becoming a sovereign state. The other is to open up for global powers to mine its natural resources risking environmental degradation and new dependencies, but experiencing economic growth and diversification and eventually independence from Denmark.

However, as Grydehøj (2020) stresses, neither of the economic pathways indicate whether Kalaallit Nunaat is ready or capable of political independence (Grydehøj, 2020). He argues that the binary understanding of sovereignty/non-sovereignty and weak economies/strong economies is unsuitable and unproductive for small nations/islands (here small refers to number of inhabitants). A so-called strong and diversified economy is not a precondition for sovereignty and usually unrealistic for small island states. Thus, the discourse on reaching economic independence in order to gain political independence is flawed, and the negative framing of new dependencies beyond Denmark is limiting (ibid.). In relevance to this, Naylor (2017) rejects the mainstream understanding of autonomy within political geography and rather argues it to be diverse material and embodied
practices and processes of resistance beyond state and market. While her example is on individual and communal level, this essay argues that autonomy as an embodied act and process of resistance is applicable to the case of inhabitants voting against the Kvanefjeld mine, consequently becoming national resistance to both global powers and discourses and the colonial ties to Denmark (Ewing,
2021). Therefore, by making decisions based on interconnected nature-culture relations and traditions, Kalaallit Nunaat proves agency beyond economic indicators, which should be considered a legitimate path and transition towards full autonomy and political independence. 

Resistance as autonomy!

This essay agrees that understanding the materialisation of technology for sustainability can shine a light on processes of domination, control, care and conviviality (Arora et. al. 2020). This is deemed relevant in the case of the Kvanefjeld mine in Kalaallit Nunaat, with the modernistic and science
backed technological discourses on the one side, and the wish for a different pathway supported by care and conviviality on the other. Based on the discussions above, the different dimensions of the materialisation of mining for sustainability is presented in Table 1. and inspired by and partly based
on the paper by Arora et. al. 2020. This adapted schema mainly discusses power-dynamics and political relations on an international scale. 

Table 1. Schema based on Arora et. al. 2020 

In conclusion, while the global domination and wish for control over rare-earth mining pushes for marginalisation and inferiorising of the indigenous and non-indigenous population, Kalaallit Nunnat resists by supporting the local caring practices and alternative, meaningful and respectful connections with the globalised world. Thus, in the case of rare earth mining in Kalaallit Nunaat,
hopes for conviviality is the wish for ecologically and socially just interaction with external actors on the terms formulated by the indigenous and non-indigenous population themselves. This is a pathway towards wellbeing on all scales and national sovereignty that should be recognised and respected.

With the ice melting and continuously growing geopolitical interest, Greenland and the arctic have moved closer to the rest of the world since the Catalonian referendum in 2017. I wonder if the group of people agreeing that no one even lives there now have a changed imaginary of Kalaallit Nunaat, and if they are aware of the continuous resistance to domination and control by green
colonialism, and the acts of autonomy to formulate their own path to an environmentally just and decolonial future. Regardless, future research is needed to especially further explore two topics. With the acceleration of green technology, critical attention is needed to the materialisation of its political processes. Here, Arora et. al. 2020 give a thorough framework for inspiration for tracking
domination, control, care and conviviality to enhance critical perspectives and establish hope for alternative processes. Future research should also elaborate on alternative processes of autonomy and sovereignty beyond the binaries of political and economic dependence/independence. This would require an exploration of plural realities and lifeworlds that dares to move beyond
conventional thinking. Both topics must be approached from decolonial standpoints and strategies.

References

• Arora, S., Van Dyck, B., Sharma, D., Stirling, A. (2020) Control, care, and conviviality in the politics of technology for sustainability. Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy, Vol 16(1), pp. 247-262.
• Ewing, J. (2021) The World Wants Greenland´s Minerals, but Greenlanders Are Wary. The New York Times (Online) at https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/01/business/greenland-mineralsmining.html Accessed 16.04.2022
• Farzan, A. N., (2021) How an election in Greenland could affect China - and the rare-earth minerals in your cellphone. The Washington Post (Online) at https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/
  2021/04/08/greenland-election-rare-earth-minerals/ Accessed 16.04.2022
• Grydehøj, A. (2020) Unravelling economic dependence and independence in relation to island sovereignty: The case of Kalaallit Nunaat (Greenland). Island Studies Journal , Vol. 15(1), pp. 89-112.
  Greenland Minerals LDT (no date) Greenland Minerals (Online) at https://ggg.gl Accessed 17.04.2022
• Hanrahan, M. (2017) Enduring polar explorers´ Arctic imaginaries and the promotion of neoliberalism and colonialism in modern Greenland. Polar Geography, Vol 40(2)
• Hastrup, F., Brichet, N. (2021) Mining for Greenlandic self-government: Fractal islands in the Anthropocene. Island Studies Journal, ahead of print
• Henriques, I., Bohm, S. (2022) The perils of ecologically unequal exchange: Contesting rare-earth mining in Greenland. Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol 349.
• Ianucci, E. (2022) GGG launches legal battle over Kvanefjeld. Mining Weekly (Online) at https://www.miningweekly.com/article/ggg-launches-legal-battle-over-kvanefjeld-2022-03-23 Accessed 16.04.2022
• Menton, M., Larrea, C., Latorre, S., Martinez-Alier, J., Peck, M., Temper, L., Walter, M. (2020) Environmental justice and the SDGs: from synergies to gaps and contradictions. Sustainability Science, Vol. 15, pp. 1621-1636.
• Naylor, L. (2017) Reframing autonomy in political geography: A feminist geopolitics of autonomous resistance. Political Geography, Vol. 58, pp. 24-35.
• Naalakkersuisut (2021) Greenland says yes to mining but no to uranium. Naalakkersuisut, Government of Greenland (Online) at https://govmin.gl/2021/05/greenland-says-yes-to-mining-butno-to-uranium/ Accessed 16.04.2022
• Reuters (2022) Greenland´s new coalition partner won´t seek changes to uranium ban. Reuters (Online) at https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/greenlands-ruling-left-wing-party-forms-newgovernment-coalition-with-social-2022-04-04/ Accessed 16.04.2022
• Schreiber, M. (2018) The Arctic´s Indigenous peoples bear a disproportionate burden of the world´s response to climate change, leaders say. Arctic Today (Online) at https://www.arctictoday.com/arctics-indigenous-peoples-bear-disproportionate-burden-worlds-response-climate-change-leaderssay/?wallit_nosession=1 Accessed 16.04.2022
• Skidmore, Z. (2022) Q&A: Greenland´s gold rush. Mining Technology (Online) at https://www.mining-technology.com/analysis/aex-gold-greenland-gold-mining/ (Accessed 16.04.2022
• Soer, A. (2022) The Arctic This Week Take Five: Week of March 28, 2022. The Arctic Institute (Online) at https://www.thearcticinstitute.org/arctic-week-take-five-week-march-28-2022/ Accessed 16.04.2022