I. Guissard

With the introduction of the border zone visa the inhabitants in the Nor- wegian-Russian borderland have found new ways of experiencing and visiting the neighbouring borderland area.

Based on the interviews conducted in 2009, 2012 and 2014 this article represents some local narratives and discourses on the Russian side of the border prior to the implementation of the new visa regime and after the implementation of it. The article gives a tentative description of how the everyday life of the population in Nikel is affected by the recent restructuring of political and administrative space and, following Anssi Paasi; how their socio-spatial contexts have been altered.

Key words: borders, social space, Russian borderland, RussianNorwegian borderland relations, transnationalism.

Since the establishment of the Barents Euro Arctic Region 20 years ago the importance of intertwining new relations between territory and identity in the European North has been on the agenda [11]. In consequence, the need of more open borders and functional cooperation between East and West jas appeared. On May 29, 2012 the inhabitants in the Norwegian-Russian borderland experienced a shift in the cooperation due to the possibility of applying for the local border traffic permit allowing them to make use of, and visit the borderland in new ways.

This article looks at some local narratives and discourses on the Russian side of the border related to the implementation of the new visa regime and the restructuring of political and administrative space. In what way are the local inhabitants in Nikel affected by the recent changes?

It is through narratives that we are able to see borders and the nature of

borders in a given society [8]. The narratives that constitute this text is derived

ПЫШЦ НТППОЫОЧЭ ЩОШЩХОЬ МШЧЬЭТЭЮЭТЧР К “НТЯОЫЬТЭв ШП ЩШЬТЭТШЧОН ЯТОаЬ” Д1, Щ. 358Ж. They all differ in terms of how they are members in a given society and affect, and are affected by, other peoples they constitute their reality with. In constructing a narrative of the Russian borderland being in flux, the peoples in Nikel and the place in particular, are constituting the different contexts this text is based upon. I will mainly refer to interviews made with peoples in Nikel from 200920141, as well as information derived from seminars and conferences in the borderland taking place in the same period. This material will present a partial de-

1 The research conducted in Nikel in 2013 and 2014 was made possible by a grant from the Regional Research Funds in Norway. I am greateful to my colleagues from the “EбМХЮЬТЯe гШЧО” ЫОЬОКЫМС РЫШЮЩ; OХРК IЯКЧischsheva for conducting many of the interviews with me in

2014 and to Urban Wråkberg for comments and numerous discussions. Liza Stepanova and Anna Lankinen did also a great job as interpreters. The interviews in Nikel in 2009 were conducted together with Peter Fischer. All the interviews have been semi-structured and open ended.

157

scription of the on-going processes and transformations of the Russian border-

ХКЧН. PЫШМОЬЬОЬ КЧН ЭЫКЧЬПШЫЦКЭТШЧЬ I аТЬС ЭШ ЩШЫЭЫКТЭ КЬ “ЬШМТШ-ЬЩКЭТКХ МШЧЭОбЭЬ”.

Anssi Passi [9] advocates the viewpoint that our experiences and meanings in everyday life are bounded up in socio-spatial contexts that will connect us or

disconnect us to other peoples, social environments and nations. How is our so- cio-ЬЩКЭТКХ МШЧЭОбЭ ЛОТЧР КХЭОЫОН, ШЮЫ аШЫХНЯТОа КЧН ТЧЭОЫЩЫОЭКЭТШЧЬ ШП “UЬ” КЧН

“TСОЦ” being affected after our political and administrative space have been restructured?

By this approach I want to introduce a preliminary account of the bordered everyday life in Nikel, and produce a tentative description of how the general sociospatial consciousness of Nikel have been altered and how it has transformed in the recent years.

Friendship agreements and the Cold War

Even though the Norwegian-Russian borderland, Sør-Varanger and Pechenga District, have engaged in City-Twinning for decades and have been cooperating on a general municipality level since the establishment of the first Friendship agreement in 1972-73 the political climate of the Cold War did not make the relationship easy. A polarized East-West conflict emerged and Norway joined NATO. Difference and exclusion instead of similarity and inclusion prevailed at both Norwegian and Russian national level, illustrated by an almost entirely closed border with military installations on both sides. NorthWest Russia was a military-politically closed zone with many closed towns [4]. The

Friendship agreement between the municipalities was a signal to the need of “ЬШПЭ ЬОМЮЫТЭв”. IЧЬЭТЭЮЭТШЧКХ cooperation developed and work related infor-

mation, customs and experiences were exchanged. The cooperation did not develop to a large extent before the Cold War, but gained importance in the first years after the Iron Curtain had been lifted.

It is important to notice that the municipal arrangements were scheduled formally by the participants involved. The border was opened, but visa regulations still prevailed and the participants needed invitation and visa in order to cooperate. It was a rather bureaucratic arrangement that preferably the leaders of the different departments as well as local politicians would participate in. Thus, extensive contact did develop by some municipality departments throughout the

years the political dimension surrounding the cooperation arrangements did also

СКЯО К ЬОМЮЫТЭв КЬЩОМЭ; ТЧПШЫЦКЭТШЧ ЫОРКЫНТЧР ЭСО “АОЬЭ” аКЬ ЯОЫв ЩШХТЭТМКХХв loaded and is easy to discover in many of the narratives from the Russian borderland. Some of our informants whom had worked at the factory would in 2009

state that it was difficult for them to imagine crossing the border to Norway and

КЧЬаОЫОН: “аО НШ ЧШЭ СКЯО КЧв ЭСШЮРСЭЬ ШП МЫШЬЬТЧР ТЭ” КЧН “ЭСОЫО КЫО ТЧЬЭЫЮc- ЭТШЧЬ ПШЫ КХХ ФТЧНЬ ШП ШЩОЧЧОЬЬ Д…] we were proud citizens of SoviОЭ UЧТШЧ”

valuing the system at that time. The group that could cross borders and travel

КЛЫШКН ЭШ ЭСО “АОЬЭ” аКЬ ЛКЬТМКХХв ЯОЭОЫКЧЬ.

158

At a general level on can say that those Nikel citizens who did sign up for cultural events did so because they were curious about the neighboring society, not because they were particularly interested in the activity they had signed up for. They were told how to behave in the dangerous capitalistic country and were not supposed to exchange any goods with the Norwegians; food or beverages was said to be poisonous. While in Norway they had to stay close to the group they were traveling with and never leave the buss. Friendship arrangements was coordinated by the municipality level and many residing in the borderland would take part in school and nursery school exchange, sports and other kinds of cultural exchange with their neighbors. Some would address the importance of learning about Norwegian society, law and regulations. The infor-

mation was exchanged with friends and family. Visiting Norway once a year

аКЬ МШЧЬТНОЫОН “ЦКЧв ЭТЦОЬ” КЧН Лв НТЫОМЭТЧР ЭСО КЭЭОЧЭТШЧ ЭШ ЭСО НОЬМЫТЩЭТШЧЬ

they gave of Norway and Kirkenes one is observing the most detailed account of

К ЩКЫЭТМЮХКЫ ОЯОЧЭ СКЩЩОЧТЧР. “TСО ЛЮЬ НЫТЯОЫ аКЬ ЯОЫв ЩШХТЭО” ШЫ “I аКЬ ШЧМО ТЧ

Kirkenes celebrating the 17th of May and was very impressed by how the Norwegians celebrКЭОН ЭСОТЫ МЮХЭЮЫО КЧН ЭСОТЫ ЮЧТЪЮО ЧКЭТШЧКХ НЫОЬЬ”. In general,

traveling to Norway was a very nice experience. Norwegians were interpreted as very kind and nice smiling all the ЭТЦО: “ОЯОЧ РЫООЭТЧР вШЮ КЭ ЭСО РЫШМОЫв ЬСШЩ”

one said. Few would in 2009 associate anything negative with Norwegian people.

The socio-spatial context of the border narratives of 2009 were in general

К ЫШЦКЧЭТМ ЯТЬТШЧ ШП ЭСО NШЫаОРТКЧ ЧОТРСЛШЫЬ ЛОТЧР “ПКЫ КаКв” ЬОЩКЫКЭТЧР ЭСОЦЬОХЯОЬ ПЫШЦ “ЭСОЦ” КЧН ЭСО “ШЭСОЫ” NШЫаОРТКЧ. IЭ indicates the so-called “ЭШЮЫТЬЭТМ” ЫОЩЫОЬОЧЭКЭТШЧЬ ШП ЭСО “ШЭСОЫ” that are almost mythological in their

shape and form.

One interpretation is that the understandings were derived from the politi- cal-history and the administrative border function addressing a quite closed border. Their assumptions were given meaning by linking it up to the Cold War period and Russia in the 90-es; a period of great transition and an unpredictable life. Nostalgic eyes would present the current situation in Nikel. In the 70ties life

in Nikel peaked, the state did invest in the town in contrast to the present situa-

ЭТШЧ; “ЭШНКв аО ШЧХв ЬОО НОЬЭЫЮМЭТШЧ” ШЧО ЬКТН. АШЮХН ЧШЭ ЭСО RЮЬЬТКЧ РШЯОЫn- ment consider investiЧР ТЧ NТФОХ ТЧ ЭСО ПЮЭЮЫО? “OСС, ЭСОЧ аО СКЯО ЭШ аКТЭ ПШЫ К

ХШЧР ЭТЦО…” ШЧО ЫОЬЩШЧНОН. NТФОХ аКЬ ХШМКЭОН КЭ “ЭСО ОЧН ШП ЛТР RЮЬЬТК” КЧН was one of those forgotten towns facing the same destiny as many of the other rural towns far from Moscow and St. Petersburg. It was also one of those mono industrial towns being totally dependent on the local factory and mining industry. Very few of our informants did in 2009 believe in the realization of the border zone visa even though it had been one of the bullet points in the Twin City declaration signed by the local authorities and approved by the two counties Foreign ministers, Sergei Lavrov and Jonas Gahr Støre in 2008. Many did respond positively to the idea of open borders to Norway though. A Russian in-

159

formant living in Kirkenes addressed Nikel in 2010 - right after the Norwegian

and Russian authorities had agreed upon the implementation of the border traffic

ЩОЫЦТЭ ЭСО ПШХХШаТЧР аКв: “IЭ ТЬ К ЬХООЩв ЭШаЧ аСТМС ЧООНЬ ЦШЫО КТЫ” ЛЮЭ ЬСО was also receiving feedback frШЦ ХШМКХЬ ЛОТЧР ЯОЫв МЮЫТШЬ ШП ЭСО ЧОа ЩОЫЦТЭ: “

АКЬ ТЭ ЫОКХХв ЭЫЮО?!”.

Local border traffic permit and City-Twinning

In 2010 the Norwegian authorities as part of a larger Norwegian Strategy of developing the High North, also addressed an increased focus on developing

the relationship to Russia. In line with the development of stronger industrial -

ОМШЧШЦТМ ЭТОЬ аТЭС RЮЬЬТК КННЫОЬЬОН ТЧ ЭСО GШЯОЫЧЦОЧЭ’Ь HТРС NШЫЭС SЭЫКЭОРв issued in 2006 and more specifically in the Barents 2020 report increased cross-

border communicating with the regional and local level was also prioritized. A

ЦЮХЭТ ОЧЭЫв ЯТЬК, “PШЦШЫ ЯТЬК”, МШЮХН ЛО ТЬЬЮОН ЭШ RЮЬЬТКЧ МТЭТгОЧЬ ХТЯТЧР ТЧ

Murmansk oblast, Arkhangelsk Oblast and the Nenets Autonomous Okrug. Due ЭШ ЭСТЬ ЭСО NШЫаКв’Ь CШЧЬЮХКЭe General in Murmansk has issued an increasingly

amount of Pomor visas from 2011 and onwards. This resulted in a dramatic rise of Russian visitors to the Norwegian borderland and town Kirkenes in particular. The two countries (and Schengen) did also on May 29, 2012 initiate a local border traffic permit, and took a new step in the direction of total abolition of visa between Russia and the rest of Europe. This made it far easier to people living in Sør-Varanger to get access to the Russian borderland. The visa bureaucracy and invitations were no longer needed.

The local border traffic permit made it possible to enter the Norwegian neighboring territory 30 kilometers from the border, and 30 to 50 kilometers at the Russian territory. The inhabitants in this zone can apply for the local border traffic permit and can be issued an ID card valid for 3 year as long as the citizen had lived in the zone for more than 3 years. By holding this ID card one can access the neighboring country with easier procedures at the border crossing point and one is allowed to stay in the neighboring area up to 15 days before returning. Approximately 9000 inhabitants at the Norwegian side can apply for the permit and 45000 at the Russian side. As we speak around 3500 inhabitants at

the Norwegian side have the ID card and approximately 1300 at the Russian side1.

In 2009 one informant in Nikel said that Norwegians would very rarely visit Nikel. In 2013 there were approximately 36 000 Norwegian border crossings at Storskog-Boris Gleb with the border traffic permit. In September 2012 the representative of local businesses and entrepreneurs in the Pechenga District, Sizov would admit that Pechenga had not prepared well as a municipality for the

1 Out of 40 inhabitants in Nikel that was interviewed in spring 2014 half of them would hold a Pomor visa, only a few of them was the owner of the local border traffic permit. The most frequent answer by those not holding visa or border traffic permit was that they did not have time to get it because of prioritizing work.

160

implementation of the border traffic permit1 but one year later in November 2013 he stated that 10 percent of the income at many local businesses in Nikel was from Norwegian customers2. Visiting the local petrol station in Nikel on Saturdays is not an option for peoples residing in Nikel due to all the Norwegian visiting. The Norwegians are finding Nikel and the Pechenga District attractive for many reasons. In addition to filling petrol, they make use of different services ranging from making appointment with the local dentist, shopping and relaxing at local restaurants. Norwegians with local border traffic permit would spend around 12.5 million NOK in 2013 [10].

Increased interest in Nikel and the borderland is also seen from Murmansk Oblast and regional authorities. At the first Russian-Norwegian border cooperation days in Nikel in 2011, the former governor of Murmansk Oblast, Dimitrij

V. Dmitrienko wrote the town Nikel and the Russian borderland into the Barents history by naming the Russian-Norwegian border МШШЩОЫКЭТШЧ НКвЬ КЬ ЭСО “NТФОХ

ТЧТЭТКЭТЯО” ТЧЬЩТЫОН Лв ЭСО ПКМЭ ЭСКЭ ЭСО ЧКЦО “KТЫФОЧОЬ” ТЧ 1993 аКЬ РТЯОЧ ЭШ ЭСО declaration announcing the establishment of the Barents Euro Arctic Region3. At

the same arrangement two years later the new governor, Marina Kovtun, asseЬЬОН ЭСО НОЯОХШЩЦОЧЭ ШП ЭСО EЮЫШЩОКЧ NШЫЭС КЬ “ТЦЩШЬЬТЛХО аТЭСШЮЭ ТЧЭОЫЧa-

ЭТШЧКХ МШШЩОЫКЭТШЧ”, and stressed that the bilateral cooperation with neighboring Norway was a comparative asset. She embraced the continuance of the Twin City cooperation Nikel and Pechenga District has with Kirkenes and SørVaranger Municipality, and dwelt on the importance of sustainable development for people residing in the borderland. This is a framework that would institutionalize the two towns in a bilateral regional/national context and moreover larger European context of transnational City Twinning cooperation [6; 5; 3].

In both speeches, the governors downplayed the division between state/regional (local) political sphere in their approach to Nikel and the development of the Norwegian-Russian borderland space. They both engaged in the transnational region-building on behalf of the borderland. If the increased activity and cooperation across the Norwegian-Russian borders was the consequence it might become a unique model of cooperation between the countries on a national scale Dmitrienko stated in 2011.

The political agenda above is also seen in the recent development of the town and in the narratives from the locals I have interviewed. Today a map over

1 Stated at the “Living in the Centre-Periphery” seminar in Nikel September 2012. Arranged by Finnmark University College, Murmansk Humanities University, Sør-Varanger Municipal-

ity and Pechenga District.

2StatОН КЭ ЭСО МШЧПОЫОЧМО “Russian-Norwegian border МШШЩОЫКЭТШЧ НКвЬ ТЧ NТФОХ”, OМЭo-

ber/November 2013.

3 Stated at the МШЧПОЫОЧМО “RЮЬЬТКЧ-Norwegian borde ЫМШШЩОЫКЭТШЧ НКвЬ ТЧ NТФОХ” November 2011. Arranged by the Russian Ministry of Regional development, the Government of Murmansk Oblast, the Ministry of Economic development of the Murmansk region and the administration of the Pechenga District.

161

the town is translated into Norwegian and welcoming Norwegians to Petsamo. Local shops as well as the local government are taking numerous measures to welcome the neighbors from Norway. For instance, there are NorwegianRussian bilingual notes put in front of the local stores, signposts that can be found in the city landscape are in both Russian and English. At one of the local

restaurants you find the menu in Norwegian and different menus are named after

NШЫаОРТКЧ КЧН RЮЬЬТКЧ ЭШаЧЬ КЧН МТЭТОЬ: “KТЫФОЧОЬ”, “MШЬФШа”, “BОЫРОЧ” КЧН

“SШМСв”. All this illustrates that today Nikel has taken advantage of the more porous nature of the border - signs and symbols in the city are addressing the transnational border context.

Obviously, the citizens of Nikel are now de-mythologizing Kirkenes and Norway. They do not find them so exotic anymore. The neighbors visit Nikel

frequently and they themselves go to their neighbor in the West often. As one

ТЧПШЫЦКЧЭ ЬКТН; “KТЫФОЧОЬ ТЬ ХТФО К ЬОМШЧН СШЦО ЭШ ЦО ЧШа.” SСО КЧН ШЭСОЫЬ would drop by the colleagues chatting at their colleagues’ office in Kirkenes. Spending time looking at the sea, visiting the local museum was also considered an option. Using a bicycle to look around in the town. One could also simply walk around in the nature nearby the town area. One can book room at the local

snow hotel and even use the airport to reach other places in Norway or other

НОЬЭТЧКЭТШЧЬ ТЧ ЭСО аШЫХН. “АО аСШ ХТЯО Тn the Barents region with Schengen

ЯТЬК СКЯО ПКЧЭКЬЭТМ ШЩЩШЫЭЮЧТЭТОЬ” one stated. Due to these people Nikel is to an increasing extent not looked upon as the town - ЭСО “ОЧН ШП ЛТР RЮЬЬТК”, ЛЮЭ Ыa- ther as “ЭСО ЛОРТЧЧТЧР ШП RЮЬЬТК”. TСО РОШРЫКЩСТМКХ ХШМКЭТШЧ of the town makes

it today a bridgehead to the West.

Conclusion

The physical and social space of the town today is gradually replacing the

geopolitical worldview associated with static national borders. Flexible

аШЫХНЯТОаЬ КЧН ШЩОЧЧОЬЬ ТЧНТМКЭО “ЬЩКМО ШП ПХШаЬ” КЧН КЫО seen in the urban space as well as in the local border narratives of my informants [2]. In the last years the city has acquired signs and symbols that are associated with a basic borderland identity [7]. A hybrid nature and a transition spaМО аСОЫО “ПЫШn-

tier/transition world between, and across, the more rigid lines that separated us

ТЧ ЭСО ЩКЬЭ” КЫО ПОХЭ ТЧ ЦКЧв ЭЫКЧЬКМЭТШЧЬ ЛОЭаООЧ ЭСО ХШМКХ NШЫwegian and Rus-

sian inhabitants [8, p. 152]. Today many people residing in Nikel take an advantagО ШП ЭСО ЩШЬЬТЛТХТЭТОЬ ШП МЫШЬЬТЧР; “СОЫО” КЧН “ЭСОЫО”, ЩСвЬТМКХХв КЧН Ьo-

cially. In consequence, their orientation towards the outside world are changing; ЭСО “UЬ” КЧН “TСОЦ” НТЬЭТЧМЭТШЧЬ ТЧ the border narratives of 2014 are far more

flexible and diverse than in 2009. In 2014 the socio-spatial context of the narratives connects Nikel to the outside world in totally new ways. The opening up of the territories by the use of new administrative and political tools are redefining the interaction in the borderland. This tentative conclusion was made two years

162

after the local border traffic permit had become available to the citizens in the Russian-Norwegian borderland space.

Bibliography

1.Barth F. A personal view of present tasks and priorities in cultural and social anthropology / F. Barth / Ed. Borofsky R. // Assessing Cultural Anthropology. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1994. P. 349-360.

2.Castells E. The Informational City. Information Technology, Economic restructuring, and the Urban Regional Process / E. Castells. Oxford: Blackwell, 1989. 402 p.

3.Haugseth P. Tvillingbysamarbeid i det Norsk-russiske Grensesonen

/P. Haugseth / eds. A. Viken., B.S Fors // Grenseliv. Stamsund: Orkana Forlag, 2014. S. 21-37.

4.Hønneland G., Jørgensen A.K. Kolas lukkede byer: fra autonomi til integrasjon / G. Hønneland, A.K. Jørgensen // Internasjonal Politick. 56 (3). 1998. S. 445-467.

5.Joenniemi P. City-twinning as local foreign policy: the case of Kirkenes-Nickel / P. Joenniemi // CEURUS EU-RUSSIA papers. 2013. URL: http://ceurus.ut.ee/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/EU-Russian-paper- 15_Joenniemi.pdf.

6.Joenniemi P., Sergunin A. When two aspire to become one: citytwinning in Northern Europe / P. Joenniemi, A. Sergunin // Journal of Borderland Studies. N. 26 (2). 2012. P. 232-242.

7.Morehouse B.J. Theoretical approaches to border spaces and identities / B.J. Morehouse / eds.: V. Pavlakovich-Kochi, B.J. Morehouse, D. WastlWalter // Challenged Borderlands: Trancending Political and Cultural Boundaries. Aldershot:Ashgate, 2004. P.73-169.

8.Newman D. The lines that continue to separate us: borders in our “ЛШЫНОЫХОЬЬ” аШЫХН / D. Newman // Progress in Human Geography. N. 30. 2006.

P.143-161.

9.Paasi A. Territories, Boundaries and Consciousness: the Changing Geographies of the Finnish-Russian Border / A. Paasi. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 1996. 101 p.

10.Sørensen H., Tvedt E. Grensehandel ved den Norskrussiske Grensen. En Studie av Grensehandel Mellom Sør-Varanger Kommune og Pechenga Rayon / H. Sørensen, E. Tvedt. Master Thesis. Bodø: Universitetet i Nordland, 2013. 126 s.

11.Tunander O. Geopolitics of the North: geopolitik of the weak: a post-cold war return to Rudolf Kjellèn / O. Tunander // Cooperation and Conflict. N. 43 (2). 2008. P. 164-184.

327 – 304.5

163