CPSA/ISA-Canada section on International Relations

C07(a) - Indigenous Peoples, Security Studies, and (Canadian) IR

Date: May 30 | Time: 03:15pm to 04:45pm | Location: Classroom - CL 312 Room ID:15754

Chair/Président/Présidente : Suzanne Hindmarch (University of New Brunswick)

Discussant/Commentateur/Commentatrice : Real Carriere (University of Saskatchewan)

Session Abstract: The growing salience of Indigenous peoples in Canada requires engaging with Indigenous politics from a range of disciplinary and theoretical perspectives, including those such as International Relations (IR) that have long been disinterested in Indigenous peoples and other sub-altern political subjects. While political scientists have increasingly recognized the political agency of Indigenous governments as actors within multilevel governance, and the institutionalization of Indigenous peoples within international law and organizations, these literatures primarily situate Indigenous political agency in domestic or institutional contexts that reinforce the colonial position of Indigenous peoples within the settler state. Such perspectives elide central questions arising from IR’s disciplinary focus on questions of power, sovereignty, and security. The recognition of Indigenous peoples as self-determining nations who possess distinct, sometimes conflicting, identities and interests from their respective states raises important questions for scholars of IR and its security studies sub-field. This panel reflects efforts by four junior Canadian scholars to examine contemporary Indigenous political issues through the lens of IR and security studies, situating Indigenous peoples within theoretical and comparative contexts which their traditional situation as domestic subjects have generally precluded. By challenging standard views of Indigenous peoples’ agency and subjectivity, these papers reveal the importance of Indigenous politics for a range of topics central to International Relations, and contribute to further engagement on Indigenous political issues by IR and security studies.

Nation-to-Nation Relations?: Indigenous Global Politics and Canadian Foreign Policy: Leah Sarson (Dartmouth College)
Abstract: Contemporary International Relations scholars and practitioners generally recognize that substate governments affect the state’s international affairs; however, there is less acceptance of Indigenous governments as global actors that meaningfully impact the state. After all, the expectation would be that central governments, with considerably more resources and power, would be unlikely to face a challenge from an Indigenous government. When Prime Minister Justin Trudeau describes the relationship between the Canadian state and Indigenous peoples as “nation-to-nation”, it suggests that the government is prepared to accept some level of Indigenous global engagement. But as Indigenous governments across Canada draft their own governance structures, rules, and regulations, multilevel governance structures demarcating authority and control become increasingly convoluted. Thus, this paper asks: under what conditions are Indigenous governments able to destabilize the authority of the state in the international arena? What are the consequences of Indigenous global engagement for Canadian foreign policy. Applying paradiplomacy theory, which argues that International Relations cannot be properly explained absent the global affairs of substate governments, the paper analyzes the effect of Indigenous peoples and governance on Canadian foreign policy. This paper argues that by challenging international perceptions about the state, Indigenous governments can alter the space in which a state develops and executes international policy. By examining Indigenous governments’ participation in the Ontario mining sector, I demonstrate that Indigenous governments affect Canada’s capacity to control its place in the global extractive resource sector, which I argue is a primary driver of Canada’s international relations.

International Relations, Indigeneity and Pacification: Colleen Bell (University of Saskatchewan)
Abstract: In the field of IR, comparisons have been in made between contemporary peacekeeping/ peacebuilding operations and imperialism (Paris 2001; Cunliffe 2012, Turner 2010). Building on theses comparisons, this paper will explore the concept of pacification as a useful linkage between past and present colonial relations. In particular, I will suggest that critical exploration of the concept and practice of pacification can help scholars understand the specific forms of violence at work in (neo) colonial encounters. Further, I show that studies on the politics of pacification in international relations, can contribute productively to debates on Indigenous sovereignties in Canada, specifically with respect to Indigenous perspectives on recognition and resistance, and what is at stake in reconciliation.

Damaging Environments: Settler-Colonialism, Security, and Indigenous Peoples: Wilfrid Greaves (University of Victoria)
Abstract: This paper theorizes why security claims articulated by Indigenous peoples fail to be accepted by government authorities or become incorporated into the security policies and practices of settler states. By engaging the concepts of securitization and ontological security, I account for how Indigenous peoples are prevented from being able to successfully ‘speak’ security to the state, especially with respect to environmental issues. I argue that non-dominant social groups that articulate threats originating from the dominant society or state institutions are unable to gain acceptance for security issues that challenge the dominant national identity. In effect, because Indigenous peoples’ security claims challenge the ontological security of settler societies by identifying the state and dominant society as the source of their insecurity, Indigenous identity acts as an inhibiting condition for successful securitization. I support this argument with evidence from contemporary cases of Indigenous security claims in Canada. The argument has implications for the advocacy strategies of non-dominant groups engaged in struggles for environmental and social justice, and suggests that alternative discourses centred on justice or sustainability may provide better avenues for political and policy change.