OPENING FOR LOCAL POLICY-MAKING IN

THE NORWEGIANRUSSIAN BORDERLAND. REFLECTIONS FROM AUTHORITIES IN PECHENGA DISTRICT, NORTHWEST RUSSIA

Abstract. From 2008 and onwards an interplay between local and global political discourses regarding the development of the Russian-Norwegian borderland was emerging. This article is introducing the dominant discourses seen from a Russian borderland perspective in response to the new times, mainly by one of the key Russian local political spokesmen. In 2008 the Mayor of Pechenga district, Victor Mavrin, responded to an initiative from his neighboring municipal counterpart in Norway aiming to link Russian and Norwegian local and national foreign policy together in new ways. Two different but intertwined dominant political discourses were part of his perspective: considerations regarding the Friendship Agreement of 1972/73 between SørVaranger municipality and Pechenga district renewed within the Twin City crossborder partnership policy and the growing interest from the two countries governmental level in developing joint large scale industrialeconomic collaboration in the Eu-

ropean Arctic. These discourses suggests, following Giddens (1991), that modern institutТШЧs ОбpОМt КЧ “ШpОЧ” sШМТКХ аШrХН аСОrО tСО ХШМКХ КЧН tСО РХШЛКХ КrО rОХКtОН tШ

each other in a dialectic interplay.

Keywords: European Arctic, the Russian-Norwegian borderland, Pechenga, social world.

Local Friendship meets the Global World

The Norwegian government increased its political attention regarding the

development of European Arctic in its all-inclusive approach towards the High

NШrЭС ОЦЩСКЬТгОН ТЧ ЭСО TСО NШrаОРТКЧ GШЯОrЧЦОЧЭ’Ь High North Strategy (2006). The strategy gained official recognition and did pretense a collaborative tone between different levels of Norwegian society and the local and national political level (Hønneland & Jensen 2008). The national political ambitions and the broad discursive mobilization would soon stretch out to the local level of the Norwegian-Russian borderland attempting to integrate small-scale cross-border initiatives with large scale ambitions and long-term political perspectives.1 An interest in more functional industrial economic forms of cooperation with regards to the European Arctic was seen in the Norwegian Pomorzone idea launched as a joint Norwegian-Russian Special Economic Zone (Wråkberg

1 IЭ СКЬ ЛООЧ КrРЮОН ЭСКЭ RЮЬЬТК’Ь ПШrОТРЧ ЩШХТМв ТЬ rКЭСОr ЮЧЩrОНТМЭКЛХО (MüХХОr 2008) КЧН ЭСО

political emphasis on the European Arctic relevant for the discussion in this paper has been

ЯТОаОН КЬ “ПrКРЦОЧЭОН” (ЬОО JОЧЬОЧ & SФОНЬЦШ 2010). RЮЬЬТКЧ ЬМОЩЭТЬТЦ МШЧМОrЧТЧР re- gion-building projects has also been part of the post Cold War political processes (see Browning 2003).

272

2009, Joenniemi & Sergunin 2012, Hønneland & Jensen 2008). This Norwe- gian-Russian raise in transnational political ambitions was addressed stepwise. Downscaled and decentralized to the geographical peripheries of the two countries neighboring political districts; the towns Nikel and Kirkenes and its political leadership became actors in the making of a new local foreign policy. A new regional building approach through City-Twinning had been initiated and the process was linked to post-Cold War discourses of geopolitical modernism and

experiments with twin town cross-border partnerships elsewhere in central Eu- rШЩО rОХКЭОН ЭШ ЭСО EU’Ь ОЧХКrРОЦОЧЭ. BШrНОrЭШаЧЬ КЭ ЭСО EЮrШЩОКЧ ЛШrНОr Щe-

ripheries had for some years been addressed as international actors on behalf of transnational functional cooperation (Joenniemi & Sergunin 2011).

Friendship, Twin City and Pechenga Rayon

In interviews four years after his first practical encounters with the new visions for the Norwegian and Russian borderland Victor Mavrin claimed that

the Pechenga district administration was ready for the intensification of crossborder cooperation in 20081. “АО аОrО ЭСТЧФТЧР ТЧ ЭСТЬ ХТЧО ШП МШШЩОrКЭТШЧ ЭаШ

years before it was mentioned [by the Norwegian side]”. He was referring to the year 2006 when Pechenga district had started developing its own strategy of revitalizing initiatives of cross border cooperation with their Norwegian partners2.

The basis of the cooperation back then between Pechenga district and SørVaranger municipality was the Friendship agreement from 1972/73. This case of City-Twinning was set in a complex historical backdrop of the Cold War years where communication and relationships across national borders was challenged by the East West conflict and the fact that NATO member Norway and Russian borderland was part of a military-politically tensed area (Hønneland & Jørgensen 1998). Due to practical political reasons the softening approach was not boosted before the Iron Curtain was abolished and replaced by regional identity building initiatives like the Barents Euro Arctic Region (1993). The Russian

borderland was opened for cross-border relations on an increased scale turning

KШХК PОЧТЧЬЮХК ТЧЭШ RЮЬЬТК’Ь РКЭОаКв ЭШ SМКЧНТЧКЯТК КЧН EU. SООЧ ПrШm the Russian-Norwegian borderland the initial enthusiasm peaked in the early 90ties and then gradually became less attractive. In general, it was a rather bureaucratic arrangement coordinated by official municipality authorities involving each side

1 Victor Mavrin was Mayor of Pechenga district from 2005–2010.

2Methodological considerations. Field research on the Twin City process in the NorwegianRussian borderland have been conducted by the author on and off since 2008. In spring and autumn 2012 research was continued and several interviews were carried out in the Russian borderland. One of the interviews was with the former Mayor of Pechenga district, Victor Mavrin. The more recent updates in 2013-14 was made possible by a grant from Regional research funds in Norway. All the interviews conducted have been semi structured and open ended. Thanks to Urban Wråkberg and my wife Marit Hiim Haugseth for commenting on this paper.

273

of the borderland in formal exchange between e.g. primary schools and kindergartens with their teachers and pupils; it was and is important in sports and other

forms of cultural exchange at a general level. Mavrin looked at the agreement КРКТЧ КЧН “аОrО rОКНв ЭШ discuss the topic. I was ready to discuss it, I wanted to

ХШШФ КЭ ЭСО СТЬЭШrв ДШП ЭСО FrТОЧНЬСТЩ МШШЩОrКЭТШЧЖ”. HО ОЦЩСКЬТгОН ЭСКЭ ЭСО Хo- cal level did have the best assumptions and background for addressing the cor-

rect questions regarding benefits of future collaboration.

“АО КrО НТЬМЮЬЬТЧР ЭаШ ЦЮЧТМТЩКХТЭТОЬ аТЭС НТППОrТЧР ОЧЯТrШЧЦОЧЭЬ КЧН the inhabitants know what the task is about, what can be interesting, what to go

for, what to search for in the future and what should be left for others [region or feНОrКХ ХОЯОХЖ ЭШ ЭКФО МКrО ШП” (IЧЭОrЯТОа аТЭС MКЯrТЧ 2012).

Mavrin emphasized the all-inclusive approach in the new policy towards

developing the High North of 2006 and later became himself as a Mayor of Pechenga district an active promoter of it. He was sЭrОЬЬТЧР ЭСО ЬЭrКЭОРв’Ь ШЩОЧ

КЧН МШХХКЛШrКЭТЯО ЭШЧО ЛОЭаООЧ ЭСО ЬШМТОЭв’Ь НТППОrОЧЭ ЩЮЛХТМ ЩШХТЭТМКХ ХОЯОХЬ: “I

liked especially the fact that one expected more active participation from both

NШrаОРТКЧ КЧН RЮЬЬТКЧ ЬТНО” ЭСЮЬ ШЩОЧТЧР ПШr РrОКЭОr ТЧЭОrЩХКв Лetween local

КЧН ЧКЭТШЧКХ ЩШХТЭТМКХ ХОЯОХ. “CШШЩОrКЭТШЧ ШЧ ЦЮЧТМТЩКХТЭв ХОЯОХ МКЧ КХЬШ НОЯОХШЩ

into something large scale – but where to begin? One has to start with the small

ЧЮКЧМОЬ Д…Ж ЭСО ЩОШЩХОЬ аСШ аШrФ КЭ ЛШЭС ЬТНОЬ ШП ЭСО ЛШrНОr”.

Mavrin was ready to talk with his Norwegian partners when he was contacted by his colleague across the border to Norway, Mayor of Sør-Varanger municipality Linda B. Randal in early 2008. The Norwegian Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Støre then opened for transnational cooperation between municipalities and towns in the Norwegian-Russian borderland. Moreover the correspondence that occurred at the time did also inform the municipal Norwegian and Russian executive levels that the Foreign Minister of the Russian federation Sergey Lavrov and Governor Yuri Yevdokimov of Murmansk oblast were informed about the idea of a Twin City project, proposing it as a stepwise element in an even larger joint Russian-Norwegian industrial-economic platform called the Pomor Zone. Both the federal and regional Russian political levels were showing initial positive interest for the Twin City idea.

Top down/bottom up: Twinning for a functional future

Mavrin agreed to meet with his colleague and Mayor in Sør-Varanger municipality. It was time to expand the old Friendship relationship turning it into a more functional cooperation. But Mavrin emphasized that the initiative came from the Norwegian side and that the Russian federal and regional political level interest in Twin City collaboration was confirmed only via the Norwegian Foreign Ministry. Given this extended actions from the Pechenga administration on behalf of the borderland was considered risky (cf. Blakkisrud 2004). But the process was continued and Mavrin was motivated by City-Twinning cooperation because he believed that the local level could also make a difference

274

and contribute to further industrial-economic development in shipping, and in the extraction of oil and gas resources and fish in the Barents Sea.

I am convinced that all of these areas will unite our two countries and bring us closer together [...] for us to make an understanding of our lives here at the ground level we should maybe raise our heads and aim higher. [T]he new openness will also come from here [the borderland]. (Interview with Mavrin in 2012).

Later in 2008 the local political level in the Norwegian-Russian border-

ХКЧН РКТЧОН ОбЭОЧНОН ЩШХТЭТМКХ ЦШЦОЧЭЮЦ Лв МШЧЭrТЛЮЭТЧР ЭШ ЭСО МШЮЧЭrв’Ь FШr- eign ministers bilateral meeting in Kirkenes. The Mayors were participating in person at the meeting between Foreign Ministers Lavrov and Støre in Kirkenes June 9, 2008; they presented their perspectives on City-Twinning and handed over the formal Twin City declaration to the ministers. Lavrov was according to Mavrin considering the Twin City document very important1. The interests of the local borderland politicians and the central authorities of the two countries were interlinked regarding the foreseen development in the Norwegian-Russian borderland this particular day. Two local official representatives from differing countries would on behalf of the two states address issues of relevance for developing new borderland perspectives that would later become elements in the process of reorganizing the Norwegian and Russian borderland realities. The local political reasons for this top down/bottom up process that would make local and national political visions materialize in Kirkenes that particular day in June 2008 was stressed by Mavrin. He emphasized the importance of to two local politicians interest and wish to collaborate on similar topics. They had a common goal on behalf of the development of the borderland and the region. The meeting in June 9, 2008 in Kirkenes was the first time the former Mayor of Pechenga received official approval from Russian top leaders on the collaboration with the neighboring municipality in Norway. For the Pechenga Mayor Twin City collaboration was considered to be the starting point for new borderland relations. The bullet points in the declaration were building on the former Friendship agreement. One point was also about the fact that Twin City cooperation should also contribute to new border zone visa between Sør-Varanger and Pechenga district. Later in 2008 Mavrin had contact with the Embassy of the

Russian federation and the ambassador in Oslo. The ambassador told him that:

“TСО ЩrШМОЬЬ СКЯО ЧШа ЬЭКrЭОН”.

Nikel-Kirkenes twin town project at present

On May 29 2012 the implementation of the new local border zone visa was a fact. A more streamlined regime and practice concerning visa routines and custom control was possible to launch. From June 2012 and onwards the new border zone visa succeeded in facilitating everyday borderland interaction and

1 See Haugseth (2014) for a more elaborate discussion.

275

new initiatives from regional and local authorities gradually changed the local and public image of Pechenga into a vital border district, particularly in the town of Nikel. In Norway the municipality had up to then mainly been associated with pollution, old industry and decades of post-Soviet decay (Hønneland 2010, Rautio 2003). From 2011 onwards local political authorities have addressed the Russian borderland as a transnational area in line with the regional building approach of the Barents Euro Arctic Region (Haugseth 2014b). The outlook and self-branding has been endorsed further in new public symbols uniting the Russian borderland area with its Scandinavian geographical counterparts. The local political visions and aspirations on behalf of the two countries have gained new meaning in the last few years, suggesting a dialectic interplay between local and global political discourses.

References

1.Blakkisrud, H. (2004). Russian Politics and the Future of the Barents Region. Barents Russia 2015 [Text]. Econ-Report Barents 2015 No. 7. – Oslo: Econ Analysis AS.

2.Browning C. (2003) The Region-Building Approach Revisited: The Continued

Othering of Russia in Discourses of Region-Building in the European North [Text]. Geopolitics, 8:1, 45–71.

3.Giddens, A (1991) Modernity and Self-Identity. Self and Society in the Late Mod-

ern Age [Text]. – Cambridge: Polity Press.

4. Haugseth P. Tvillingbysamarbeid i det norsk-russiske grensesonen [Text] / P. Haugseth / eds.: A. Viken., B.S. Fors // Grenseliv. Stamsund: Orkana Forlag, 2014. – P. 21–37.

5.Haugseth, P. Interaction in the borderland after the implementation of the local border traffic permit: Perspectives from the Russian town Nikel, Pechenga district [Text] / P. Haugseth / eds. N.I. Kurganova., S.A. Vinogradova, E.A. Tyurkan //

Languages and Cultures in the Arctic Region. Murmansk: Murmansk State Humanities University, 2014b. – P. 154–160.

6.Hønneland G. Borderland Russians. Identity, Narrative and International Relations [Text]. – Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan Press, 2010

7.Hønneland G. Den Nye Nordområdepolitikken. Barentsbilder etter årtusenårsskiftet [Text] / Hønneland G., Jensen L.C. – Bergen: Fagbokforlaget.

8.Hønneland G. Kolas lukkede byer: fra autonomi til integrasjon [Text] / G. Hønneland, A.K. Jørgensen // Internasjonal Politikk. 56 (3). – 1998. – S. 445–467. 2008.

9.Jensen, L.C., Skedsmo P.A (2010). Approaching the North: Norwegian and Russian foreign policy discourses on the European Arctic. Polar Research 29:439–450.

10.Joenniemi P. When two aspire to become one: City-twinning in Northern Europe [Text] / P. Joenniemi, A. Sergunin // Journal of Borderland Studies. – № 26 (2). – 2011. – P. 232–242.

11.Joenniemi P. Laboratories of European Integration: City-Twinning in Northern Europe [Web] / Joenniemi P., Sergunin A. EUBORDERREGIONS. Working Papers

Series1. Accessed on the internet at http://www.hse.ru/data/2012/04/11/

276

1251652090/Peipsi%20Koost%C3%B6%C3%B6%20Keskus%20WP1-sisu.pdf on 15 May 2014.

12.Müller, M (2008) Situating identities: Enacting and studying Europe at a Russian

Elite University [Text] / Müller, M. Millennium: Journal of International Studies 37: 3–25.

13.Rautio, Vesa (2003) The Potential for Community Restructuring. Mining towns in Pechenga [Text] / Rautio, Vesa. Saarijärvi: Kikimora Publications.

14.MТЧТЬЭrв ШП FШrОТРЧ AППКТrЬ (2006). TСО NШrаОРТКЧ GШЯОrЧЦОЧЭ’Ь HТРС NШrЭС

Strategy [Text]. – Oslo: Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

15.Wråkberg, U. Pomorzone: A Cross-border initiative to Further regional development in the Northern Norway and Northwest Russia. In Transborder Cooperation of Russia with Northern Countries: Conditions and Perspectives on the Develop-

ment: Proceedings of V Northern Social and Ecological Congress [Text] / Wråkberg, U. Pomorzone. – Moscow, 21–22 April, 2009. Moscow: Publishing house Galleria.

277