B RI D G I N G THE G A P

STRATEGIES FOR CIVIC ENGAGEMENT AND DIPLOMACY IN THE BERING 

STRAIT REGION

by

Sonia Cuesta and Robyn Sundlee

In Collaboration with Brown University and the Coast Guard 

Academy’s Center for Arctic Study and Policy
Table of Contents

Executive Summary 

1. Introduction

2. Why the Arctic Matters

3. Research Questions, Problem Statement, Purpose 

a. Research Questions

b. Problem Statement and Purpose 

4. Historical Contextualization of the Bering Strait 

1. Treaties and Agreements 

2. Bering Strait History

3. Recent Events

5. Data and Methods 

1. Interviews 

2. Literature Review

6. Findings 

1. Russian Government-Chukotka

2. United States Government-Alaska 

3. Indigenous Cross-Strait Relations

4. United States-Russia Relationship

7. Best Practices

1. Canada

2. US

3. Elsewhere

8. Recommendations 

1. Use existing framework to standardize federal-tribal consultation 

process

2. Appoint tribal liaisons for the federal entities working in the BSR

3. Extend the terms of the Alaskan Coast Guard District Commander

4. Create processes whereby traditional knowledge is included in 

research and policymaking for the BSR region

5. Set the groundwork for a bilateral agreement between Russia and 

the US on Indigenous cultural exchange and preservation

1. Grassroots movement recommendations

2. Federal/state collaboration recommendations

9. Conclusions

Appendix 1: Intro Brief

Appendix 2: Meet the Authors

Bibliography 

Endnotes

Disclaimer: The author conducted this study as part of his/her education at Brown University. This report is 

submitted in partial fulfillment of the course requirements for the Master of Public Affairs program. The judgments 

and conclusions are solely those of the author, and are not necessarily endorsed by the Watson Institute, by Brown 

University, or by any other agency.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Bering Strait Region is becoming increasingly important in informing Arctic policy 

and regional governance. This report seeks to analyze the role of Indigenous Peoples in 

the policymaking process and possibilities for collaboration between the US and Russia 

in the region. Our findings stem from thirty interviews conducted in Nome, Anchorage 

and DC in February 2017. The key findings are divided into four topics.

1. Russia-Chukotka

Conditions for Indigenous Peoples are very different in Chukotka than on the US side. 

For Chukotkans to have meaningful dialogue with Alaskans, their relationship with the 

Russian government would need to undergo substantial change. 

2. US-Alaska 

Our interviewees consistently expressed frustration about the lack of standardization in 

the federal-tribal consultation process; the scarcity of tribal liaisons; the poor use of 

traditional knowledge in the decision making-process and the volatility of the political 

arena. 

3. Indigenous cross-strait relationships

Russian and Alaskan tribes share a very rich common heritage and these relationships 

are in danger because of several factors. However, programs such as the Shared 

Beringian Heritage Program and the Bering Strait Messenger Network have succeeded 

in adding an element of hope to the possibility of revitalized relationships. 

4. US-Russia

Based on our interviews, many believe that the Arctic is the best arena for Russia-US 

collaboration. However, several factors complicate the potential for cooperation, such as 

poor communication on the ground, incompatibilities when it comes to governance style 

and an uncertain political milieu. Nonetheless, Russian-US relations in the Arctic 

Council and the Coast Guard Forum are positive. 

Our recommendations for encouraging Indigenous and local participation in the 

policymaking process and improving relations across the strait are as follows:

a. To use existing framework to standardize the federal-tribal consultation process 

b. To appoint tribal liaisons for federal entities working in the BSR

c. To extend the terms of the Alaskan Coast Guard District Commander

d. To create formal processes whereby traditional knowledge is included in research 

and governance decisions for the Bering Strait Region

e. For Russia and the US set the groundwork for a bilateral agreement on 

Indigenous cultural exchange and preservation through both grassroots 

movements and federal-state collaboration
1. INTRODUCTION

Maritime traffic in the Bering Strait has doubled in less than a decade. 1 Scientists 

expect 2017 to yield record high temperatures in the Arctic, leading to record low ice 

coverage in the Arctic Ocean.2 As Arctic ice melts, it will be easier for tourists, cargo 

ships and speculators looking to extract Arctic natural resources to enter the region. 

Changing environmental conditions will drive greater human activity throughout the 

Bering Strait Region (BSR). For communities in the region, the opening of the Arctic 

offers many new opportunities, but also presents new threats and challenges. 

Many view increased maritime traffic as an opportunity for growth. However, it will 

cause challenges to the ways of life of the communities in the region. Increased traffic 

means that crowded waterways could hamper local and Native fishing, harm vulnerable 

sea life, and raise the risk of oil spills. Policymakers will need to address these oncoming 

challenges in a way that is informed by both experts and those who live and depend on 

the Bering Sea. They will also have to consider how to involve the Russian Federation,

which borders the US in the Bering Strait, without whom effective governance will not 

be possible. 

Preparing for a new climate means grappling with policy problems on every level of 

governance, from Indigenous village communities to the United Nations. This report 

seeks to provide insight into Bering Strait stakeholders’ perceptions and concerns for 

the future of this critical region. It also offers suggestions for the facilitation of increased 

input from local and Indigenous communities and how their historical, cultural and 

familial links across the strait could set the foundation for future policy. Local and tribal 

involvement in policymaking will serve to improve regional governance and to aid 

efforts to collaborate with Russia.

In the past, Indigenous relations across the strait were a catalyst for rapprochement 

between the US and Russia. The events following the Cold War demonstrated the 

enormous potential that this region possesses when it comes to improving these

collaborative ties.3 At a time when there is much uncertainty regarding the future of USRussia relations, the BSR could be the ideal place for a first step towards co-operation. 

Closer ties between both countries will result in increased stability in regional 

governance and a more efficient division of responsibilities for joint search and rescue 

(SAR) and oil spill response missions. The common heritage across the strait provides 

an opportunity to insulate this Russian and American issue from political upheavals 

elsewhere. A stronger working relationship between the two countries should thus be 

encouraged to create a better, safer environment for the peoples of Alaska and 

Chukotka.

The BSR is poised on the brink of seismic change. The responses of policymakers in the 

next few years will have far-reaching repercussions, but will affect local and Indigenous 
2

communities on both sides of the Strait the most. This is a chance for policymakers to 

act instead of react. It is crucial for local and Indigenous Peoples to have the opportunity 

to influence these critical decisions. The new changes that are taking place in the region 

present an opportunity for policymakers to plan for and shape the future of the Bering 

Strait Region. 

2. WHY THE ARCTIC MATTERS

All recent American presidents have expressed a desire for a ‘reset’ with Russia. 

Fortunately, the present-day situation presents a new opportunity for the region.4

Russia and the United States have achieved strong collaboration in the BSR. Nuclear 

negotiations, territorial disputes and accusations of espionage overshadow the fact that 

Russia and the United States share a maritime border. The waters of the BSR and its 

communities bind Russia and the US. The common values and commitments that both 

nations share are exemplified by the family ties on either side of the BSR. The Arctic, 

like space, could serve as an area to foster cooperation between the two nations.

The residents of the BSR will face threats to their food sources, villages and ways of life. 

Some communities have already petitioned the federal government for funds to move 

their villages inland, away from coastal erosion.5 If the US and Russia cannot reach 

resolutions on how to manage the fish stocks and marine mammals these villages 

depend on, it will present an added challenge. The costs of relocating these communities 

on the taxpayer is astronomical: it costs between $80 and $130 million to move the 

critical infrastructure of a standard Native village.6 The better strategy is to invest in the 

sustainability of these communities’ livelihoods. 

The Bering Strait Region may not only provide the chance for diplomatic 

rapprochement in coming years, but will also showcase the two countries’ ability to 

coordinate when circumstances demand. In this report, we advocate for the use of soft 

diplomacy to encourage effective governance of a critical waterway.

The changes that are taking place in the Arctic will greatly impact American society. 

Melting sea ice will alter Arctic shipping, fishing, tourism, resource development and 

military operating capacity. The next decade will change maritime conditions, perhaps 

reducing travel time between North America and Asia. Ships will be able to access this 

coveted route through the Bering Strait, meaning control of the region could easily 

translate to economic leverage. At the same time, half of the United States’ fish supply 

comes from Alaskan waters. As temperatures warm, these fish stocks are migrating 

north and they will be bottlenecked in the Bering Strait. Proper planning and 

coordination with the Russian government and local communities could therefore help 

ensure America's fishing stocks.

Finally, it is no secret that the United States is behind when it comes to investing in the 

Arctic. American policy officials have estimated that Russia’s Arctic infrastructure far 

exceeds that of the US.7 Russian presence in the Arctic means that they stand the best 
3

chance of safely extracting the region’s rich resources and solidifying their territorial 

claims. By not pursuing its Arctic interests, the United States risks losing its existing

stake in the region and neglecting the American communities in Alaska. A far better 

alternative is to engage the Russian government by emphasizing cultural connections 

and approach these changing conditions as allies. 

3. RESEARCH QUESTIONS, PROBLEM STATEMENT AND PURPOSE 

3.a. Research Questions

The Bering Strait Region presents an opportunity for the United States and Russia to 

cooperate and work with Indigenous Peoples to lay a foundation for improved 

governance and collaboration in the Arctic. 

How can local and Indigenous communities and organizations in the region continue to 

contribute to improved regional governance through utilizing and enhancing 

community, cultural, and family relationships that span the Bering Strait?

Sub-questions: 

(1) How can existing cross-strait relationships among BSR communities serve as a 

foundation to enhance collaboration with Russia?

(2) How might these relationships and networks serve as a foundation for the creation 

of a shared vision and guiding objectives by US and Russian responsible agencies?

(3) How can local and Indigenous communities and organizations in the BSR better 

contribute and have a voice in the policymaking process? 

3.b. Problem Statement and Purpose

The Bering Strait Region is home to a wide range of Indigenous Peoples and local 

organizations whose livelihoods will be affected by the increase in human activity in the 

Arctic.8 The BSR’s close ties to Russia mean that it is critical for effective regional 

governance. Throughout history, the people from the Bering Strait Region have 

maintained community, cultural and family connections with their counterparts across 

the strait.9 The case of Little Diomede and Big Diomede shows how closely intertwined 

US and Russian communities are in the Arctic, with only an invisible border and a 

narrow channel separating them. The American Department of State recognizes these 

deep ties and allows travel without visas for Indigenous Peoples between Russia and the 

United States.10 Therefore, it is key to maintain a good working relationship between the 
4

US and Russia in the Arctic not only for the sake of security, but also for cultural 

wellbeing. 

However, the Russian Federation and the US government have diverging ideological 

and structural approaches to governance. This complicates the potential for greater 

cooperation in the BSR. Indigenous ties across the strait, an element that binds Russia 

and the US together, could therefore serve as a basis for improved diplomacy between 

the two countries. 

As McKenzie et al. have asserted, it is imperative that both nations remain committed to 

their Arctic relationship, regardless of the other strains in their relations.11 This has been 

tested recently by the Crimean crisis, disputes in Ukraine and the war in Syria. Even in 

these tense diplomatic periods, the United States and Russia have continued to 

cooperate in the Arctic. Both governments should seek to maintain this composure in 

the future, and allow the knowledge and ties that the Indigenous Peoples in the region 

share to inform their policies in the BSR. 

One issue that will inform regional governance in the near future is Alaskan Indigenous 

leaders actively seeking a seat at the table with policymakers. Indigenous Peoples want 

to be informed, and they want to participate in the decision-making processes that 

directly affect their communities. Failing to amplify their voices will dampen the 

potential for improved cross-strait relations.

The purpose of this report is therefore to recommend strategies for the United States to 

increase participation of local and Indigenous Bering Strait communities in the 

policymaking process, thereby improving regional governance through enhanced 

relations with Russia.

4. HISTORICAL CONTEXTUALIZATION OF THE BERING STRAIT REGION

4.a. Treaties and Agreements

4.a.i. Treaties and Agreements between the US and Russia 

Russian and American collaboration in the BSR is key for improved regional 

governance. Although it might seem complicated for both countries to cooperate at an 

international level, the Arctic has proven to be an arena where the two countries can set 

aside their differences to work together. The treaties and agreements below show 

examples of collaboration between the US and Russia on issues concerning the Arctic, 

and could serve as models to be followed in the future. 
5

In 1973, Canada, Denmark, Norway, the USSR and the USA signed the Agreement on 

the Conservation of Polar Bears.

12 These Arctic nations took an important step to fight 

for the legal protection of one of the most endangered mammals in the north, also 

recognizing Indigenous subsistence rights. Within the agreement, these countries 

emphasized their commitment to the protection of the flora and fauna of the Arctic 

region and particularly that of the precarious state of polar bear populations, in an effort 

to foster more cooperation in Arctic affairs. Although this was a multilateral agreement, 

it constituted an important example of nations with as different outlooks as those of the 

USSR and the USA during the Cold War putting their issues aside and working together. 

This highlighted the fact that the Arctic presented a very unique arena, where Russian 

and American collaboration was possible despite political differences. 

UNCLOS, or the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, was concluded in 

1982 and came into force in 1994.13 It introduced several provisions, of which the most 

significant dealt with setting limits for territorial and internal waters, establishing 

exclusive economic zones, continental shelf jurisdiction and guidelines for scientific 

research and settlement of disputes, thus making it extremely relevant to US-Russian 

relations in the Arctic. Although UNCLOS has been ratified by more than 160 states, the 

US has yet to take the step because of opposition to Part XI of the Convention. Part XI 

established the ISA (International Seabed Authority), which would serve to authorize 

the exploration and mining of seabeds, as well as to deal with the collection and 

distribution of royalties from said mining. Arguing that this has detrimental effects on 

the economy and security of the United States, UNCLOS has never been formally 

ratified, although all other provisions of the Convention are accepted by the US as 

customary international law. 

ARCTICECON "UNITED STATES – RUSSIAN MARITIME BOUNDARY AND EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONES." ARCTICECON. 

JANUARY 11, 2012. ACCESSED MARCH 16, 2017. HTTPS://ARCTICECON.WORDPRESS.COM/2012/01/11/UNITED-STATESRUSSIAN-MARITIME-BOUNDARY-AND-EXCLUSIVE-ECONOMIC-ZONES/
6

Several years later, in 1988, the US and the USSR signed an agreement on mutual 

fisheries relations.14 Previous agreements between the US and the USSR in 1976 and 

February of 1988 on related fishery issues had been successful, so both countries signed 

yet another agreement further regulating the countries’ cooperation in the field of 

fisheries.15 This would then serve as a basis for the so-called “Donut Hole Agreement” in 

1994, referenced below. 

In 1990, the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics 

reached a landmark agreement regarding their maritime boundary.16 The Agreement 

with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the Maritime Boundary defined the 

boundary between the nations in the Bering and Native Chukotkan Seas, the Arctic 

Ocean and a portion of the North Pacific Ocean. This seemed to resolve the border issue 

that affected disputed territories between the two countries, but the agreement was 

never formally ratified by the Russian government. Nonetheless, the agreement seems 

to hold to this day, with both countries patrolling the area to ensure that there are no 

border violations.17

Four years later, in 1994, the Convention on the Conservation and Management of the 

Pollock Resources in the Central Bering Sea constituted another example of 

collaboration between the US and Russia in the BSR.18 In their 1990 agreement, the 

United States and Russia defined their ocean jurisdictions as extending 200 nautical 

miles from their coastlines. However, there was a part of the Central Bering Sea that 

remained outside the exclusive economic zones of either country, and was thus termed 

the ‘Donut Hole’ (which can be observed in the map above). Japan, South Korea, China, 

Poland, Russia and the United States all partook in extensive fishing of pollock in the 

region, which led to its depletion and endangered the ecosystems and marine mammals 

which depended on it, such as seals and sea lions. In 1994, all the states that had been 

actively fishing in the area came together, and signed a convention regarding the 

regulation of fishing within that area.19

In May 2011, the White House released the Joint Statement of the President of the 

United States of America and the President of the Russian Federation on Cooperation 

in the Bering Strait Region.

20 Within it, both administrations recognized the success of 

the Shared Beringian Heritage Program in providing a better understanding of the ties

between Chukotkan and Alaskan Indigenous communities, noted the importance of the 

region for both countries, the necessity of protecting the rights of Indigenous Peoples 

living in the BSR, as well a desire to deepen cooperation between the two countries in 

the BSR.21 As a high-level acknowledgement of the importance of the BSR, this 

statement served to reiterate the importance of the need for collaboration between the 

US and Russia in the Arctic. Although relations between the countries have changed 

since 2011, the necessity for joint management of the Arctic has only grown stronger 

with the changes in traffic and the environment. 
7

4.a.ii Treaties and Agreements Affecting Indigenous Peoples

Indigenous rights and government structures that dictate federal interactions with 

Indigenous communities are inseparable from our research question. In order to have

meaningful conversations with Indigenous Peoples and effectively integrate them in the 

policymaking process, factors such as their legal rights and the background which builds 

on the current consultation processes need to be understood. Below we attempt to give a 

brief overview of relevant policies in the context of our research question. 

In 1971, President Nixon signed the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA), a 

pivotal piece of legislation for Alaska Natives. The goal was to resolve land disputes, 

stimulate economic development and preserve Native culture. Alaska Native 

Corporations were created under the federal law and were granted ownership of a 

portion of Indigenous lands that they had historically used, and they were compensated

for the rest by the federal government. The funds from the compensation created Alaska 

Native corporations, at the regional and village levels, where most Alaska Natives are 

eligible to be shareholders. Today, the legislation is still hotly debated. Some believe that 

ANCSA was an innovative approach to an intractable issue, and that the integration of a 

capitalist model would better position Alaska Native communities to thrive. Others are 

more critical, arguing that the Indigenous Peoples were coerced into settling too much 

land for too little compensation. Although some Indigenous Peoples are dissatisfied with 

the act, the corporations are very entrenched in Alaskan society, making it difficult to 

reach a consensus amongst Alaska Natives regarding whether to condemn or embrace 

the act. 

Several years later, in 1992, the US government amended the National Historic 

Preservation Act, first passed in 1966. This legislation is the basis for the tribal 

consultation provisions in the American Council on Historic Preservation’s (ACHP) 

regulations. The 1992 amendment of Section 101(d)(6)(B) determined that Federal 

agencies were required, as part of the responsibilities defined under Section 106, to 

consult with any tribe ‘that attaches religious and cultural significance to historic 

properties that may be affected by an undertaking’.22 Although tribal consultation has 

been increasingly recognized by the federal government since the initial passing of this 

law, problems often arise because the term consultation is loosely defined. To further 

complicate things, state agencies interpret consultation rights differently, and 

sometimes do not even recognize the right to consultation on a government-togovernment basis. Different agencies therefore take consultation to mean different 

things, from meeting with Indigenous Peoples and tribes and seeking input, to merely 

seeing it as the need to inform them of a decision that has already been made. Muddled 

into this are personality politics, which play a large role in the interpretation of 

consultation rights. Unfortunately, the legal framework is so malleable that it often 

comes down to the specific person in charge of arranging consultation, and their own 

views on the matter, to decide how tribes are included in the decision-making process. 

In the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe v. Deer case of 1995, the tribe sought to define 

meaningful consultation to be ‘tribal consultation in advance with the decision maker or 
8

with intermediaries with clear authority to present tribal views to the [...] decision 

maker’.23 The consultation would take the form of a short meeting, where the federal 

agency would set forth their proposed actions, explaining the reasoning behind them, 

and the tribe would then have the ability to issue a motion of support for the decision, or 

to reject it.24 However, this rarely seems to be the case. More often than not, our 

interviewees claimed that consultation rights simply translate into the right to be 

informed of decisions that have already been made. 

Clinton strove to make progress by issuing an Executive Order in 2000 on Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments, but it did not seem to lead to any 

tangible results.25 Consultation rights gained momentum once more under the Obama 

administration. In 2009, Obama issued a Presidential Memorandum on Tribal 

Consultation.26 Within it, he reinforced the need to include the voices of Indigenous 

Peoples in the policymaking process, especially when it affected their communities, and 

reiterated that it was a requirement for federal agencies to follow the procedures 

detailed in Clinton’s Executive Order. Nevertheless, the way in which federal agencies 

interact with tribal governments is still not standardized, and the differences between 

agencies’ attitudes persist to this day. 

The United Nations General Assembly adopted the Declaration on the Rights of 

Indigenous Peoples in 2007.27 The Declaration constituted a significant step towards 

recognizing the responsibility of nations and states to consult with Indigenous Peoples 

before undertaking actions that impact their communities.28 The problem with this 

Declaration, however, was that it was mostly symbolic in nature, and has no legally 

binding consequences for states who chose to disregard its suggestions. 

4.b. Bering Strait History

4.b.i Chukotka

For much of history, invading powers found little success in the Chukotka region. Many 

Russian leaders attempted to subjugate the Indigenous Peoples, especially when the 

resource wealth of the Kamchatka peninsula was discovered. Nonetheless, the area was 

difficult to hold, and for the past three centuries, Russian control over Chukotka has 

ebbed and flowed. Due to its location and relative autonomy, Chukotka also had a great 

deal of contact with the West since around 1820. In fact, Chukotka is actually closer to 

Washington D.C. than it is to Moscow.29

However, the advent of the Soviet Union and two World Wars led to Native resettlement 

processes and enormous mining operations. The value of Chukotka and its proximity to 

the United States meant that the Russian government guarded it jealously, and for forty 

years during the Cold War there was a so-called “ice curtain” separating Chukotka from 

its American neighbor. 

During the fall of the Soviet Union, Chukotka gained nominal independence. Yet, the 

period of openness following glasnost and perestroika was cut short by the election of 
9

Governor Aleksandr Nazarov in 1992, who closed off the region to outsiders—Russian or 

foreign. His policies crippled Indigenous Peoples’ efforts to return to their traditional 

way of life and take care of one another. Nazarov has also been accused of 

embezzlement, and the Native tribes maintain that little federal money made it to the 

region.30 The upheaval caused by the collapse of the Soviet Union in conjunction with 

Nazarov’s repressive regime was too disorienting for the Indigenous Peoples of 

Chukotka to establish their Native rights in the new Russian Federation.31

In more recent years, the region has gotten more help from the government. Roman 

Abramovich, a billionaire Russian oil magnate, assumed the post of governor following 

Nazarov. Many who study the region expressed suspicions about Abramovich’s motives, 

since he is well-known as one of Russia’s most powerful and controversial oligarchs.32

Siberian expert Fiona Hill noted in her book, The Siberian Curse, that Russian oligarchs 

have tendencies to “carve out fiefdoms for themselves in remote, resource-rich areas so 

that they can increase their influence at the center”.33 The governor owns a Chukotkan 

gold mine and his oil company was active in the region.34 While life in Chukotka is 

difficult for the Natives, it offers an abundance of opportunities to Russian politicians 

and businessmen.35

Still, Abramovich’s governorship injected huge amounts of wealth into the regional 

economy through his charitable donations, business establishments and income taxes.36

Abramovich effectively took over the role of the Russian state, supporting the 

population out of his own pocket: salaries rose five-fold during his term and helped the 

region claw its way out of a financial abyss.37

Despite the generosity of their former governor, Chukotkans are by no means a liberated 

people. Democracy indicators consistently rank Chukotka near the bottom among the 

Russian regions.38 When Abramovich stepped down as governor and passed the title to 

his protegé Roman Kopin, this rank fell even further, to the third least democratic state 

in the Federation.39 Today, the region remains closed to outsiders and is tightly 

controlled and monitored by the Russian state. 

4.b.ii Friendship Flight of 1988

June 13, 1988 saw a remarkable collection of passengers convene at the Nome 

International Airport. Alaska Natives, diplomats, academics and reporters all boarded a 

flight to the Russian city of Provideniya, a flight that would become an overture to the 

end of the Cold War.40

This was a momentous and emotional occasion. Following War World II, the two Bering 

Strait countries halted any interactions across the border. Native families that had 

traveled freely back and forth for centuries were isolated on either side of the Bering 

Strait, and this vital community pathway was closed down by governments far away in 

Moscow and Washington D.C. During these forty years memories faded, as elders who 

remembered their relatives on the other side passed away. 
10

The fall of the “ice curtain” also marked the beginning of a renaissance period for 

Siberian-Alaskan relations. Alaskan-Yupik, Alaskan-Inupiaq and Siberian-Yupik 

families who had been separated for decades reunited. Russian and Alaskan students 

attended each other's universities. A Russian ship brought fuel to Nome during the 

harsh winter of 2012 and Indigenous whalers and subsistence representatives from both 

countries set up coordination commissions.41

The initial friendship flight was remarkable not only for what it accomplished, but how 

it was accomplished. Private citizens, rather than federal entities, spearheaded the 

effort. This included people like Nome resident Jim Stimpfle, a real estate businessman 

from Nome, who found his calling in connecting these Alaskan and Chukotkan families. 

He was well-known for concocting outside-the-box ideas, such as sending weather 

balloons loaded with gifts across the strait in the hopes of communicating friendship to 

the other side. The 1988 friendship flight was the brainchild of Stimpfle and a handful of 

other dedicated activists, and they happened upon the right political moment.42 

During this period, Gorbachev was looking for high-profile examples of cooperation 

with the West. There were a number of events that were highly publicized in that time, 

apart from the friendship flight. In 1987, a swimmer from California named Lynne Cox 

swam between the Diomede islands, which garnered media attention.43 A woman from 

Juneau, Dixie Belcher, took a group of almost one-hundred musicians to Russia in the 

mid-80s as an effort to encourage more interaction across the Bering Strait, serving as 

an example of what the efforts of personal diplomacy could achieve. She had been 

fighting for more than three years to open up the borders, and had expressed her views 

that ''[...] people need to reach out as people, and not leave it to the diplomats. The 

diplomats are not working.''44

These were the honeymoon days. Alaska Airlines had regular passenger flights across 

the Bering Sea for about 10 years. In 1989, both governments established visa-free travel

for Natives on either sides of the border, making the travel process quicker and cheaper. 

In 2012 the visa-free program was curtailed due to “administrative issues”, according to 

the U.S. State Department, and even Native residents had to apply for and buy visas. 

The Bering Strait Regional Commission reported in 2015 that the issue was resolved and 

that visa-free travel was taking place again.

45

Yet eventually the Alaska Airlines flights stopped, and contact across the strait declined. 

Bering Air, based in Nome, still makes the journey to Chukotka, but their website states: 

“Chukotka – the region where Bering Air flies – is still considered to be a “closed” region 

within the Russian Federation. U.S. citizens and other nationals must have a valid 

passport, Russian visa and an official entry permission document signed by appropriate 

Russian authorities. Visas are issued based upon an invitation from a person or 

corporation.”

46

This statement gives a taste of the barriers—both financial and bureaucratic—that locals

face when trying to cross the border. The visa-free program is still operating, but the 

byzantine bureaucracy, difficult communication and high costs of chartering a plane 
11

have dissuaded many from attempting to visit. Since the program’s inception in 1993, 

the U.S State Department permitted visa-free travel for 4,800 visitors from Chukotka. 

However, in 2013, only about 30 Alaska Natives traveled visa-free.47 As American and 

Russian geopolitical relations have declined, so have the cultural interactions.

It is possible that such a diplomatic rapprochement was easier in this era because at the 

time, Gorbachev yielded a great deal of authority to the remote regions of Russia, and 

encouraged Chukotka to negotiate joint ventures with Alaska. Today’s national leaders 

have expressed desire for improved relations, but the political circumstances are not 

analogous to 1988. President Putin has centralized control back in Moscow, and 

Chukotka residents are heavily discouraged from interacting with the West. However, 

when the grassroots movement to initiate the Alaska Airlines flight began, the political 

landscape also looked challenging. 

4.c. Recent Events

4.c.iii.a Vessel Traffic

A map of Arctic 

shipping routes, 

including the 

Northern Sea 

Route over 

Russia. (Public 

Domain photo 

courtesy the 

Arctic Council)

The need for diplomatic cooperation today is also arguably greater than it was in 1988, 

given the swift changes taking place in the Arctic. The metamorphosis includes both 

changing natural conditions and human activity. No event demonstrated this more 

starkly than the voyage of the luxury cruise ship Crystal Serenity through the Northwest 
12

Passage last August. Ordinarily, sea ice would have stopped such an undertaking, but 

the waters are becoming increasingly navigable. In fact, The New York Times quotes a 

passenger who remarked “The trip wasn’t quite what I had expected. [...] Because of 

global warming this year, the ice has melted so much that actually we had to look for ice 

rather than try to avoid it.”48 This startling statement illustrates the changing conditions

in the Arctic which local and Indigenous communities are facing.

Additionally, the massive vessel, which carried over 1,000 passengers, sparked both 

hopes and fears from those in the towns visited by the Serenity. The possibility of an 

accident loomed large, since few of these areas had the capacity of infrastructure to 

respond.49 At the time, Nome had only 18 hospital beds available.50 Many were also 

concerned about threats to the environment, yet few on the Alaskan side knew if the 

Russians shared their concerns, let alone how they would coordinate should something 

happen in the middle of the Bering Strait.51

The U.S. National Park Service has recently created a projection for what to expect of 

Bering Strait vessel traffic in 2025. The simulation estimates that two to eight percent of 

ships that currently use the Suez and Panama canals will begin using the Northwest 

Passage instead.52 According to KNOM, a local radio station in Nome, the National Park

Service is working with local and Indigenous organizations to try to predict locations 

that are especially vulnerable to oil spills and marine animal disruptions.53 There are 

many calls to involve Russia in this planning process, since these challenges cross the 

international dateline. 

One bright spot in the middle of political tensions between the US and Russia has been 

the Arctic Coast Guard Forum, an international organization of the Arctic countries’ 

coast guards. The Forum is dedicated to enhancing inter-service relationships in order 

to deliver immediate benefits to Arctic stakeholders.

54 While almost all military contact 

between Russia and the U.S. has terminated, both countries’ coast guards have managed 

to continue operational cooperation. The Arctic Institute’s Andreas Østhagen has argued 

that these organizations are capable of holding two opposing views simultaneously: 

“both Norway and the United States have recognized that cooperation on low-level coast 

guard issues can be kept separate from a strong symbolic response in reaction to 

Russian actions in Ukraine.”

55 The United States Coast Guard has recognized the 

importance of working with Russia on ocean governance, and has prioritized 

cooperation in the region. Separating high and low level political partnerships offers a 

blueprint for Bering Strait operations in the future, and suggests that policymakers 

should be optimistic when it comes to Russian participation.

4.c.ii. Recent Events Impacting Indigenous Peoples 

Executive Order 13689

Recent events relating to consultation and representation rights have greatly affected 

Indigenous Peoples. In December 2016, Obama signed Executive Order (EO)13689 
13

which established the Northern Bering Sea Climate Resilience Area. Within it, he 

established a mechanism to receive input directly from Alaska Native communities in 

the policymaking processes, stating that “these communities possess a unique 

understanding of the Arctic ecosystem and their traditional knowledge should serve as 

an important resource to inform Federal decision-making.”

56 The EO also emphasized 

the importance of traditional knowledge in coordinating federal efforts in the Arctic. It 

created the Bering Task Force, which is required to perform regular consultation with a 

Bering Intergovernmental Tribal Advisory Council, to be formed within six months of 

the EO. This Tribal Advisory Council was to be composed of eleven elected officials 

representing Alaska Native tribal governments in the Northern Bering Sea area, and was 

charged with providing recommendations on activities, regulations or policy that may 

affect actions or conditions in the Northern Bering Sea Climate Resilience Area. 

The order gave special attention to climate resilience; the rights, needs and knowledge 

of Alaska Native tribes; the delicate and unique ecosystem; and the protection of marine 

mammals and other wildlife.57 Although this Tribal Advisory Council would be 

something that could potentially change the policymaking process for the Bering Sea 

area, formally including tribes, it faces two challenges. Firstly, there was no specific 

funding allocated to the formation of the Council, and with four out of the six months 

established by the EO having passed, some have started to doubt that this Council will 

ever see the light of day. Secondly, if the region does overcome the obstacles to the 

formation of this Advisory Council, it risks being unoriginal and suffering from the same 

endemic issues that plague tribes’ consultation rights, depending on the Bering Task 

Force’s interpretation of consultation. Nevertheless, it was an encouraging step taken by 

the Obama administration on its way out to further recognize the need in the region to 

include traditional knowledge and Indigenous Peoples in the decision-making process. 

Improving Tribal Consultation and Tribal Involvement in Federal Infrastructure 

Decisions

In early January of 2017, the Department of Interior, Department of Defense and 

Department of Justice published a report entitled ‘Improving Tribal Consultation and 

Tribal Involvement in Federal Infrastructure Decisions’.58 The report provided nonbinding recommendations for federal agencies, but these did not have any legal 

consequences.59 This built on the Obama administration’s efforts to improve the 

government-to-government relationship between the federal government and 

Indigenous tribes, in part to address concerns that tribal consultation policies are often 

poorly implemented. 

The report states “Tribes have expressed frustration with inconsistent authorities, 

implementation, policies, and practices across the Federal Government and across the 

country with regard to consultation.”60 This is consistent with the findings from our 

interviews. The report also collected feedback on the best practices for consultation with 

tribes and asked the tribes to provide information on two broad categories, “promoting 

meaningful government-to-government engagement within the existing framework” 

and “identifying any necessary change to the existing framework.”

61
14

Although this report was conducted at the national level, the findings are representative 

of the sentiment we encountered in Alaska. The Indigenous leaders we interviewed told 

us, without any reference to this report, that consultation is only fruitful when there is a 

possibility for sincere partnerships and willingness on the part of federal agencies to 

reach a consensus. During our interviews, we encountered views expressed in this report 

that, at times, federal infrastructure projects were imposed on Indigenous communities 

that did not need or wish for said projects. These projects were carried out without any 

consultation with Indigenous leaders, or the population at large, who were then left to 

pay for the projects. 

In the Obama administration’s report, tribes also referenced the fact that they often 

have to educate federal agents on Indigenous issues, which was also voiced by many of 

our interviewees, leading to our recommendations to appoint tribal liaisons and to 

extend terms of Alaska District Commander. Although the report called for the 

consistency of federal agencies when dealing with tribes, we argue that more action is 

required on this topic. 

Requests for Tribal Recognition at the United Nations

On February 7th 2017, the Navajo Council Delegate asked for tribal representation at the 

United Nations in an effort to advocate for the Navajo Nation to become an official 

member of the United Nations.62 This action is symbolic of the struggles of many 

Indigenous tribes to be fully recognized as sovereign bodies when trying to obtain 

government-to-government consultations. Delegate Brown presented before the UN and 

asked that Navajo Nation no longer be considered a non-governmental organization. 

Officially, Navajo Nation has sovereign status because its representatives are 

democratically elected to represent and act on behalf of the Navajo people. Brown 

argued for the creation of a new category within the UN to ensure that Indigenous tribes 

with sovereign status would be allowed to ‘participate in all meetings to the fullest 

extent regarding issues that may affect the Navajo people, their land, territories and 

resources’.63 This recent event relates to movements that there have been across the

Arctic with Indigenous Peoples fighting for their voices to be amplified and to be able to 

have a seat at the table. 

Indigenous communities greatly desire the opportunity to influence decisions and 

policies that will directly impact their way of life and their communities’ well-being. 

Building on opportunities such as the ‘permanent participant’ category at the Arctic 

Council, which allows Indigenous Peoples to have a seat at the table and grants them full 

consultation rights, the Navajo Nation will add force to a movement that is already 

gaining traction in international law. Delegate Brown’s actions could thus set a 

precedent for the formal recognition and inclusion of Indigenous tribes as governments 

in their own right at an international level. 

5. DATA AND METHODS
15

The following is an explanation of the data and research methods that informed this 

report’s recommendations. In addition to consulting the latest and most pertinent 

literature on the subject, we conducted numerous interviews with a cross-section of 

stakeholders. The objective was to identify common threads of opinion that could be 

translated into policy action. 

5.a. Interviews

The foundation of this report is interviews with 30 different people, conducted over the 

course of three months (January 2017 - March 2017) in Anchorage, Nome, Washington 

D.C. and remotely. Table (1) provides a qualitative description of the interviewees, 

classed by position held. 

United States of America

Interview Category Frequency Percent of total 

interviews

Federal/Local 

Government Official 

(Former or Current)

5 16.67%

Elected Official or Staff 5 16.67%

Coast Guard 1 3.33%

Military Officers 1 3.33%

Academics 2 6.67%

NGO Leaders 12 40%

For-Profit 

Organizations

2 6.67%

Activists 2 6.67%

Total 30 100%
16

From these interviews, eleven people were from Indigenous organizations 

(corporations, tribes, non-profits), representing 36.67% of the people with whom we 

spoke. 

To acquire contacts, we followed an exponential non-discriminative snowball sampling 

method to get as wide a variety of viewpoints as possible in an attempt to avoid bias. 

Although we are aware of the possibility of bias that snowball sampling entails, we 

strongly believe that we interviewed a variety of stakeholders with different political, 

economic, social and developmental outlooks and backgrounds, who gave us very 

different responses and had contrasting opinions, making us confident that we were not 

simply interviewing a small subset of the affected population. We were careful not to 

oversample a particular network of interviewees, and to reach out to everyone who was 

recommended to us without discrimination, which leads us to believe that our selection 

of interviews is largely representative of the wider affected population. 

The majority of interviews were conducted in person, in Anchorage, Nome and 

Washington D.C. A small number of interviews were conducted over teleconference or 

Skype. Interviewees were provided with the same introductory document upon first 

contact, and always before the interview, which outlined the project and gave them a list 

of sample questions to prepare for the interview. This allowed for the comparison of 

responses across interviewees. Interview data was stored securely online and not shared 

with anyone outside of the research team.

5.b. Literature Review

This report was also supported by an extensive literature review, which included 

periodicals, journals, government strategies and publications, international agreements, 

and news articles. See Bibliography for a complete list of sources. 

5.b.i Articles, Journals and Periodicals

The information collected through interviews is supported by findings and opinions 

published in journals and periodicals. Although there were diverging opinions on some 

topics across our interviews and journals, some common themes emerged, which are 

highlighted in the Findings section. This report nonetheless seeks to represent all the 

points of view which were encountered during the interview and literature review 

processes. 

5.b.ii International Agreements

This report also referred to international agreements, particularly bilateral agreements 

between the US and Russia. Agreements that were considered for the report include:

● The 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
17

● The 1990 Agreement with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the 

Maritime Boundary

● The 1994 Convention on the Conservation and Management of the Pollock 

Resources in the Central Bering Sea

● The 2011 Agreement on Cooperation on Aeronautical and Maritime Search and 

Rescue in the Arctic

● The 2013 Agreement on Cooperation on Marine Oil Pollution, Preparedness and 

Response in the Arctic

5.b.iii Government Publications

Government publications were key for the background and recommendations section of 

this report, as the recommendations seek to enhance existing government regulations 

and agreements for improved regional governance and bilateral collaboration. 

Government publications include Executive Orders, Arctic Strategy reports, memos and 

other official publications produced by the government. 

5.b.iv Indigenous Publications

Finally, this report referred to publications by Indigenous groups and NGOs, such as the 

ICC’s Strategic Plan 2014-2018, or reports published by Kawerak on Indigenous issues 

in the Bering Strait Region.64 This provided a background to assess the current state of 

affairs in the region from the perspective of local and Indigenous communities.

6. FINDINGS

The issues addressed by this report span multiple layers of government and the two 

contrasting political systems of Russia and the United States. Therefore, we have 

divided our findings into sections that analyze the different relationships among the key 

governing bodies and stakeholders. 

6.a. Russia-Chukotka

The great degree of power centralization in Moscow has reduced the autonomy and 

increased the isolation of Chukotka. Over the course of our research we found it difficult 

to speak with individuals who had been to Chukotka, let alone who were from there. 

Many of those we spoke with who had connections to Chukotka told us that the 

residents are leery of speaking with Americans, as they fear retaliation from the Russian 

government. 

Its remote geography means that Chukotka is already profoundly isolated from the 

outside world. According to anthropologist and Russia expert Patty Gray, most believe 

that the region is still under the same Soviet rules that were repealed in the early 

1990s.65 While conducting her research, she sometimes heard the rules defended by 
18

Natives and non-Natives alike. Officials have justified keeping Chukotka closed by 

arguing that, “the large influx of diverse adventure seekers to Chukotka has the adverse 

effect of creating a criminal atmosphere”.66 Chukotkan residents believe that the tight 

controls protect them from undesirable individuals who might want to enter.67 

Many of our interviewees also spoke about Russian intolerance for foreign NGOs. The 

Russian state is distrustful of international nongovernmental organizations, seeing them 

as thinly-veiled mechanisms for foreign subversion. After the anti-government protests 

of 2012, the Kremlin introduced new legislation that requires all groups that accept 

foreign funding or engage in political activism to register as “foreign agents”. This has 

affected Chukotkan and American interactions, particularly as Indigenous organizations

were pressured to declare themselves “foreign agents” after collaborating with 

Americans on cultural preservation.68

It is possible that Roman Abramovich’s posting as governor was an easy means for 

President Putin to re-establish governmental legitimacy in Chukotka, while still 

maintaining tight control over the region. Allowing Abramovich to retire was seen by 

some scholars as Putin’s next step in the increased centralization of power by 

nationalizing the country’s elite, mandating that all public office holders must divest of 

any foreign property.69 Bringing elites to heel and cracking down on nongovernmental 

organizations means greater authoritarian rule and fewer aid for Chukotka residents.70 

This refusal to allow foreign NGOs access to the region is a problem, because Chukotka 

is also suffering from economic and cultural decay. The region lost 66 percent of its 

population between 1989 and 2002.71 Chukotka’s 78,600 residents have the highest cost 

of living in the Russian Federation, and must spend 75 percent of their income on food 

alone.72 While the cost of living in Alaska is also high, it is still comparable to the cost of 

living in America’s largest cities. In Anadyr, food is more expensive than anywhere else 

in the Russian Federation.73 Housing is also precious, and many rely heavily on the 

Russian government to subsidize the costs. This has resulted in large extended families 

often sharing small apartments, which constitutes a decrease in the quality of life of the 

region.74 

These findings are meaningful because they illustrate the uphill battle facing the local 

and Indigenous communities when it comes to civic participation and cultural 

preservation. The state of governance and quality of life in Chukotka are serious barriers 

to advocating for more Indigenous rights. Chukotkans rely on the Russian government 

for basic necessities and protection. For Chukotkans to contribute to the policymaking 

process in the Bering Strait and renew relationships with their relatives in Alaska, they 

would need to obtain explicit blessing from the Russian federal government. 
19

6.b. US-Alaska

The United States federal government has a complicated relationship with Alaska. 

Geopolitics mean that the state is very far removed from the rest of the country, and its 

particular location means that the governance issues Alaskans encounter are not readily 

understood by policy-makers from the lower 48. To further convolute things, tribes in 

Alaska are constituted differently from those in the rest of the country, and their 

systems of interaction with state and federal agencies is thus more complex. 

One of our main findings was the frustration on the part of tribal governments, Native

corporations and Indigenous-led NGOs with regard to the fact that federal-tribal 

consultation processes are not standardized across state and federal agencies. While the 

State of Alaska does not recognize tribes as sovereign bodies, the federal government 

does. Nonetheless, the degree to which federal agencies actually consult with tribes 

differs depending on the agency. This means that oftentimes, because there is no one 

legal framework that clearly states how consultation should take place (despite the many 

attempts outlined in the legal contextualization section), it comes down to personality 

politics. Alaskan tribes suffer from the political swings that take place every two years as 

a new Coast Guard District Commander is chosen, or as the state government turns 

over, and they effectively have to re-educate these officials on tribal policies and 

consultation procedures. The quality of consultations with tribes often depends heavily 

on these officials, and on whether they consider consultation to be a worthy use of their 

time. Further complicating the process is the fact that not all agencies have tribal 

liaisons, which means that the way in which agencies are able to interact with tribal

leaders and stakeholders is subject to increased volatility. 

Another source of frustration between Alaskan citizens and the federal government 

stems from the fact that frequently, the first respondents to a distressed vessel are other 

local boats, not the Coast Guard. However, these communities do not have the training, 

infrastructure or the equipment needed to do so safely, meaning that more lives are put 

in danger. Many villages would like more SAR and oil spill-response training and 

equipment, to achieve a higher grade of self-sufficiency until the Coast Guard can 

establish a closer base or expand their operations. This does not mean that locals do not 

appreciate the Coast Guard, which is generally held in very high esteem by BSR 

communities because of its dedicated outreach, including a tribal liaison. Instead, they 

feel that the USCG is underfunded and stretched too thin, doing the best it can with its 

severe constraints and limited resources. 

There is also widespread dissatisfaction among Native leaders regarding the current role 

and place (or lack thereof) of Indigenous knowledge in the policymaking process. The 

federal government and the Arctic Council have not yet found a good way of integrating

Indigenous knowledge and placing it at the same level as Western knowledge, even 

though there seems to be a consensus that traditional knowledge should be included. 

Some specific areas where Indigenous knowledge is seen as particularly useful is when it 

comes to mapping currents and noting dangerous areas for ships, or deciding which 

parts should be avoided due to marine mammal activity. However, some interviewees 
20

also noted that because every aspect of Arctic life is changing so drastically due to 

climate variations, traditional knowledge might no longer be as practical as it previously 

was in helping note what specific aspects of the environment currently differ from the 

norm, since the change is ubiquitous. Nonetheless, Indigenous knowledge is a valuable

tool which should not be discounted, and steps should be taken to better integrate it in 

the decision-making processes. 

Particularly concerning was the fact that none of our interview subjects expressed 

certainty with regard to the new administration’s stance on the Arctic, with many of 

them stating that they believed Alaska and the Arctic were not even on their radar, with 

the exception of climate-related concerns. As many of the issues plaguing Alaska are 

time-sensitive, this lack of recognition of the importance of the Arctic is troubling, and 

the Arctic community should work to remedy this.

6.c. Indigenous Cross-Strait Relations

Russian and Alaskan tribes across the strait share a common heritage. For thousands of 

years they, as the mammals which they hunt to maintain their subsistence way of life, 

knew no boundaries, moving freely across the waters on both sides of the strait. As the 

marine ecosystem is one, disregarding any man-made border, the tribes had established 

relationships that resulted in shared dances, language and foods flowing freely from 

Chukotka to Alaska. 

Relations between Russia and the United States, however, seem to have impacted, 

perhaps irreparably, the possibility of reaching that state of union once more. Alaska 

and Chukotka’s remoteness mean that they are often misunderstood by their own 

governments. They are closer to each other in their connections and outlooks than they 

are to D.C. and Moscow. However, as a result of their great resource wealth and 

strategic position to the Arctic, parts of the regions, particularly on the Russian side, are 

closed off. Even for the average Russian citizen it is not easy to access cities such as 

Provideniya or Anadyr, as the region is a designated ‘closed zone’. Inevitably, this has 

had profound effects on the possibility for Indigenous Peoples on both sides of the strait 

to continue to pursue the relations they once had. 

There have been renaissance periods for cultural and familial ties in the region, most 

recently the post-Cold War events surrounding the friendship flight. This sparked an 

increase in contact between the two sides of the strait at a time when it seemed unlikely 

that the US would encourage relations with Russia. However, it appears that the ice 

curtain that then thawed has begun to grow once more. Despite the difficulties that 

these tribes face, from the US sanctions on Russia to the Russian condemnation of 

interactions with the West, there are some programs in effect that are working to 

maintain relations between the tribes. 

In many cases, it seems that the struggle to foster increased relations between 

Indigenous Peoples in the BSR is a fight against time. As elders die on both sides of the 

strait, memories of the familial relationships they had on the other side, a strong 
21

incentive for the ‘re-unification’ of the tribes, die with them. Furthermore, as is 

happening around the globe, the shared languages between the tribes are, if not 

completely dead, almost extinct. Although renewed interactions would perhaps 

revitalize these languages, the current situation makes this difficult. Few tribal members

except the elders speak the languages fluently, with many members speaking only a few 

words, and with the impending extinction of their shared languages, another strong 

incentive for revitalizing relations is being erased. 

Communication is thus one of the most important factors influencing cross-strait 

relations. Now that most people do not speak their Native languages fluently, there is an 

important language barrier between native Russian and native English speakers, a key 

but sad change. Often residents of the region, despite their proximity to each other, only 

speak one or the other. Thus, cultural language revitalization could be an important tie 

for both countries in renewing relations. 

One of the more successful attempts to bridge the language gap was the Bering Strait 

Messenger Network, funded as part of the National Park Service Shared Beringian 

Heritage Program. As part of this program, the Bering Strait Messenger Network was 

funded for two years, and run by the Institute of the North. It was a chance once a 

month for people to talk to their counterparts across the strait. They hired a translator, 

provided by the program, to facilitate communication. The calls would be centered 

around a specific topic each month, and there would be experts on each side dialling in 

and giving their opinion on the topics discussed. 

The program kept communications and connections alive, but it was a slow process, and 

each call took a long time because translation was needed. Although the people on both 

sides of the strait have shared concerns regarding the environment and economic 

development, this project showed how difficult communication really is. Now that the 

Messenger Network has run out of funding, it is even more complicated. Rules imposed 

by the Russian government are standing in the way of increased communication, as 

Chukotkans are discouraged from talking to people on the Alaskan side. Even US 

scientists have difficulty getting information from the Russian side, further complicated 

by the sanctions, which eliminated the possibility of most meaningful dialogue across 

the strait. 

A further impediment to a renewal of relations is the expense related to cross-strait 

travel. While some travel is still taking place, and there have been some facilitating 

factors, such as a visa-free program, the prices are often prohibitive. Since Alaska 

Airlines withdrew its regular flights to Chukotka, one of the few options to get to the 

other side, especially in the winter, is through charter flights, which are not accessible to 

the average citizen in the region. Bering Air has some flights during the summer 

months, and there is some boat movement when the ice withdraws, but by and large 

getting to Chukotka is no mean feat. During our interviews we encountered suggestions 

from private citizens to introduce a ferry to the region, passing through several cities in 

the summer months, which would allegedly bring economic prosperity to the ports 

through an increase in travel and tourism. The problem, however, is related not only to 
22

the fact that due to the harsh climate, the ferry would only be realistic during a few 

months of the year, but also, more importantly, to the almost certain lack of profitability 

of such an endeavour, which would act as a strong deterrent for any private investors. 

Another example of an attempt to revitalize relations is the Shared Beringian Heritage 

Program, funded by the National Park Service. The program was created after an 

agreement between George H.W. Bush and Mikhail Gorbachev in an effort to foster USRussian collaboration in the fields of environmental protection and global change. In 

1991 funding was allocated for this project, which receives around $650,000 per year.75

The program seeks to “foster a climate of mutual understanding and cooperation among 

the United States, Russia and the Indigenous People of Beringia [...]; support 

subsistence opportunities [...] and recognize the unique and traditional activities of

Indigenous People of the region; promote the study, interpretation, and enjoyment of 

the natural and cultural resources of international significance; support cultural 

exchange between the Indigenous People on both sides of the Bering Strait.”76

By doing this, the program seeks to develop and strengthen connections across the 

border, facilitating partnerships and collaboration. From a project on ‘Savoonga’s Bond 

and Connection to the Great Land (Chukotka)’ to ‘Traditional Knowledge of the Native 

People of Chukotka About Pacific Walrus and Dialogue Across the Bering Strait on 

Walrus-Related Concerns’ to ‘Translation of Chukchi Warfare: Mid-17th-Beginning of 

the 20th Century by Alexander K. Nefëdkin into English’, the Shared Beringian Heritage 

Program supports a wide range of endeavours to revive interactions across the strait.77

However, although this project presents a great opportunity for cultural revitalization, it 

is currently understaffed, which complicates the successful running of the program. 

6.d. United States-Russia Arctic Relationship

Relations between the United States and Russia are in a state of flux. The future seems 

to balance on the edge of a knife. Based on our interviews, many believe that the Arctic 

is the best arena for the two countries to foster cooperation.

Our interview subjects voiced frustration regarding Russia-US communication on the 

ground. Due to the government prohibitions of contact with the West, hunters and 

fishermen are not forthcoming about the environmental situations on their side of the 

strait. One marine mammal scientist recalled an oil spill incident where she and her 

colleagues were unable to pinpoint the source because it was probably on the Russian 

side, and no one would speak with them. This is indicative of the different levels of 

transparency and response when dealing with environmental crises at the US and 

Russian levels, which highlights the need for bilateral agreements. 
23

Journalists who have traveled to Chukotka describe petty harassment from Russian 

border officials. Low-level communication among civilians is essential in the Arctic, 

because oftentimes the Coast Guards are too far to respond in a timely manner. The 

taboo against Western contact is impeding Arctic communities’ abilities to react to 

emergencies. 

On higher governance levels, the story is very different. The Arctic Council has proved to 

be a productive and cordial platform for U.S.-Russia relations, in spite of the challenges. 

American media narratives of Russian Arctic activity paint an alarming picture of 

militarization and aggressive resource exploitation.78 According to one of our 

interviewees, the Russian response is that they are expanding their Arctic infrastructure 

because they have the most land above the Arctic Circle; they are merely capitalizing on 

an innate advantage. Our interview sources agreed that the real situation is a bit of both. 

Though there are certain military advantages to dominating the Arctic, Russia’s main 

concerns are commercial. According to our interviewees, these commercial interests 

have aided in the two countries’ dedication to the pooling of scientific knowledge. 

Sharing information has also provided a foundation for trust and confidence in mutual 

benefits. One interview subject characterized it as “the best kept secret in U.S.-Russian 

relations”.

This comparison between relations on the ground and in the Arctic Council shows how 

difficult it is to make grassroots connections across the Bering Strait. The governing 

styles of the two countries are not compatible: Alaska is not analogous to Chukotka in 

terms of individual autonomy or governing structure. This leads us to the conclusion 

that a private citizen-driven campaign to restore Alaska-Chukotka connections would be 

less feasible today than it was in 1988, although it might help create momentum. The 

most promising avenue for success is through negotiations on the national scale, either 

through the structure of the Arctic Council, or through an independent bilateral 

agreement.

7. BEST PRACTICES

Throughout our research, we encountered several examples of best practices that could 

be fruitfully applied in the Alaskan context. 

7.a. Best Practices in Canada

Canada was mentioned as an example to follow in terms of inclusion of Indigenous 

knowledge, having achieved a higher degree of integration than the United States. In 

fact, after their Arctic Council Chairmanship, Canada stated that one of its achievements 

was “setting a course to more consistently use traditional and local knowledge of Arctic 

communities in the work of the Council”.79

A particular piece of Canadian legislature that might be of interest to the US government 

is the “Considering Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge in Environmental Assessments 
24

Conducted under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act”, passed in 2012.80 This 

act enables relevant authorities to consult traditional knowledge in environmental 

assessments. It recognizes the fact that Indigenous Peoples possess knowledge about the 

land which can help with several tasks, such as helping identify potential environmental 

effects, strengthening mitigation measures, making better decisions and improving 

project designs, among other uses.81

Another step that the Canadian government has taken which can serve to illustrate US 

policymaker’s decisions regarding the integration of traditional knowledge is the 

creation of the Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge Subcommittee under Committee on 

the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. By creating this subcommittee, Canada is 

recognizing the importance of traditional knowledge in wildlife regulations and policies. 

A similar action is desperately needed in Alaska, particularly taking into account the 

potentially detrimental effects of future environmental changes on subsistence ways of 

life. 

Furthermore, the Canadian International Development Agency has expressed interest in 

the inclusion of traditional knowledge in their strategies, with a former president of the 

agency declaring that “just as the world needs genetic diversity of species, it needs 

diversity of knowledge systems”.82 The author of “CIDA: Traditional Knowledge”, Peter 

Croal, further cements this statement, by emphasizing the range of policies, 

conventions, laws and agreements, at the national and international level, requiring the 

application and implementation of traditional knowledge in development planning.83

This provides an interesting example of the uses of Indigenous knowledge which could 

be applied in US agencies, from USAID to domestic agencies such as NOAA or NPS, to 

better integrate IK in the policymaking process.

7.b. Best Practices in the US

There are also significant examples of best practices within the US itself which could be 

applied to Alaska. Appendix 6 from “Improving Tribal Consultation and Tribal 

Involvement in Federal Infrastructure Decisions” sets out some of these procedures. 

Particularly relevant to our report are the successes in the Albuquerque District with

respect to the relationship between the tribes and a full-time tribal liaison. The tribes 

have found that the tribal liaison “enhances cross-cultural communication by ensuring 

that Tribal perspectives and values are considered early and often”.84 Also pertinent,

relative to our recommendation of extended terms for District Commanders, is the fact 

that Albuquerque tribes praised the fact that new Commanders visit the reservations in 

the early stages of their tenure and establish regular visits to cement a good relationship 

with the tribes, with the Commander’s staff following suit to ensure the successful 

functioning of daily activities in partnership with tribes.85

The eleven Great Lakes Tribes and the Forest Service at the Department of Agriculture 

also developed an effective system of interaction, embodied in an MOU, to facilitate 

coordinated decisions. The MOU originated in the 1990s after both the Forest Service 
25

and the eleven Lake Superior Ojibwe Tribes which are members of the Great Lakes 

Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission (GLIFWC) expressed concerns about the 

jurisdiction of treaty rights in lands that were managed by the Forest Service.86 

GLIFWC and three entities of the Forest Service ratified the MOU in 1999, which 

“codifies a true government-to-government relationship and establishes a framework 

for collaboration based on consistent and timely communication and tribal participation 

in national forest decision-making.”87 In doing so, both sides avoided legal procedures 

and successfully negotiated an agreement regulating their collaboration. The MOU 

served to highlight shared goals and to establish a “consensus-based consultation 

process”, becoming instrumental in facilitating the interaction between all relevant 

entities in the capacity of co-managers with the objective of resolving disputes and 

reaching agreements on co-ordinated endeavors.88 

Collaboration between the North Dakota State Department of Transportation and the 

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) can also be seen as an example of best 

practices.89 Tribal elders in the state worked with Department of Transportation 

archaeologists in order to determine sites to be avoided for future highway projects. 

Between 2004 and 2006 a Tribal Consultation Committee was created, which now 

includes nineteen tribes. Additionally, the North Dakota DOT employed members from 

the tribes to work with the archaeologists on the field to ensure that sensitive sites were 

avoided. Although the current situation with the North Dakota pipeline makes it clear 

that not everything is working well in the state, these actions by the DOT set a good 

example for the rest of the US to follow. 

7.c. Best Practices Elsewhere

Lastly, an international example of best practices, with regard to working with the 

Russian Federation on maritime issues, can be found in the Turkish Straits.90 The Vessel 

Traffic Information System that was set in place in the Turkish Straits in 2004 provides 

a working model for the US and Russia on the separation of geopolitical issues from 

maritime concerns, especially when it comes to increased traffic safety. In the Turkish 

Straits, Russia was able to collaborate with other countries in increasing the safety of the 

region, which is particularly relevant for the BSR. As one of our interviewees remarked, 

this system works in the Turkish Straits because the body that conducts it is 

independent of any of the relations between the countries, which means that it is not 

affected by any of the ongoing political issues. Something in the BSR would have to be 

done similarly, due to the current political situation between the US and Russia. 
26

8. RECOMMENDATIONS

8.a. Use Existing Framework to Standardize Federal-Tribal Consultation Process

We recommend that the federal government standardize the way in which agencies deal 

with tribal consultations, by setting out guidelines by which all agencies must abide. 

Standardization will help to better streamline the decision-making process and 

homogenize the ways in which tribes are included in it, and to ensure that they are in 

fact included appropriately. Said action would build on both President Obama’s and 

President Clinton’s executive orders, which sought to better integrate Indigenous 

Peoples in the decision-making processes. 

To standardize the process, an explicit definition of consultations is needed, which could 

be based on the Sioux tribe’s definition of consultation in the case described previously 

in this report. A suggestion that was brought up by our interviewees again and again was 

that the Indigenous community member who is consulted should be a proper 

representative of the community, and well-versed in the issue at hand, as they should be 

able to effectively relay any decisions that are made. 

8.b. Appoint Tribal Liaisons for the Federal Entities Working in the BSR

The standardization process should also include the appointment of a tribal liaison for 

all federal agencies working with Indigenous issues, which would help unify the way in 

which tribes can interact with federal agencies and the consultation process itself. The 

tribal liaison does not necessarily have to be of Indigenous origin, but should have 

training pertinent to the interactions of the federal government with Indigenous 

communities and to Indigenous issues, to avoid the time-consuming process whereby 

Indigenous leaders have to re-educate new tribal liaisons. 

8.c. Extend the Terms of the Alaskan District Commander

To eliminate the effects of personality politics and the volatility that this induces in the 

policymaking process, the term of the Alaska CG District Commander should be 

extended from two years to a period of four years. Together with the previous 

recommendation, this will help with the stabilization of the Alaskan political arena,

particularly when it comes to Indigenous issues, as a major complaint that we 

encountered was the fact that these quick turnovers meant that Indigenous 

communities had to re-educate the District Commander every two years on Indigenous 

issues. 

Prolonging the term to four years will put the District Commander on the same footing 

as the Lieutenant Governor and the Governor. This will allow the District Commander 
27

to participate more fully in Alaskan politics and will exponentially increase the 

opportunities for Indigenous Peoples to participate in the decision-making process. 

8.d. Create processes whereby traditional knowledge is included in research and 

policymaking for the BSR region

Establish a framework under which traditional knowledge is formally included in the 

decision-making process for agencies dealing with Indigenous issues. Ideally this should

take place in the country as a whole, as well as at higher international-level institutions 

such as the Arctic Council. Traditional knowledge is a very valuable tool which is often 

underused by agencies and organizations working in the BSR, as Indigenous Peoples 

have a wealth of knowledge about the environment and cross-strait relationships which 

could be utilized to help identify changes, as well as help strategize effectively about the 

future. 

The Arctic Council presents a very powerful opportunity for the inclusion of traditional 

knowledge, and, if it could be done effectively in that institution, it would serve as an 

example to be followed for other intergovernmental and federal organizations. In fact, 

the Sustainable Development Working Group within the Arctic Council has already 

made specific recommendations for the inclusion of traditional knowledge.91 Canada has 

been able to successfully integrate traditional knowledge in their policymaking process, 

so it could also be regarded as a model to follow to structure the inclusion of Indigenous 

knowledge from Alaskan tribes in the Arctic Council. 

8.e Set the Groundwork for a Bilateral Agreement between Russia and the US on 

Indigenous Cultural Exchange and Preservation

8.e.i Grassroots movement recommendations

Encourage private citizens to get involved in the policymaking process and take steps to 

demonstrate a desire for closeness between the communities across the strait.

In 1998, the activities of private citizens were pivotal in bringing about the 

rapprochement between Russia and the US. Although the current situation might be 

even more complex than that after the Cold War, it is still possible for individuals to 

express their willingness for renewed relations between Russian and US communities 

across the BSR. Activists and journalists in the region have succeeded in managing the 

visa-free program, suggesting the possibility of new means of transport across the strait, 

and making it clear that greater connection is desired by both parties. 

Many of our interviewees implied that federal attention only focuses on the Arctic in the 

case of emergencies or other unexpected events, so high-profile citizen-led initiatives 

such as the ones that took place in the late 1980s would bring the desired attention to 

the region. 
28

As Ms. Belcher stated in the mid-80s, ''I think people need to reach out as people, and 

not leave it to the diplomats. The diplomats are not working.''92 We therefore encourage 

citizens, particularly those residing in the Arctic, to continue to advocate and pursue 

private initiatives to bring both sides closer.

8.e.ii.1 Revitalize commitments and funding to cross-strait programs

The National Park Services and similar organizations which promote Indigenous 

cultural preservation and revitalization across the strait should be backed by an increase 

in funding from both the US and Russian governments to establish a renewed 

partnership. 

On the US side, the National Park Service has been a very active agent when it comes to 

trying to breathe new life into the relations between Indigenous Peoples across the 

strait. If Indigenous Peoples’ ties across the BSR are to be a basis for improved relations 

between Russia and the US, programs which encourage and facilitate interactions across 

the strait, such as the Bering Strait Messenger Network and the Shared Beringian 

Heritage Program in general, should become a priority, and should be backed by an 

increase in funding from both governments. 

One particular point where there is also huge potential for improvement is lowering the 

cost of travel across the strait, which would surely result in an increase in 

communication between the BSR communities on both sides of the strait, and would 

thus solidify the ties that unite Russian and Alaskan Indigenous Peoples. 

Scientific research also provides an opportunity for US-Russian agreements, and there 

are current programs, such as RUSALCA, which could be further developed to create a 

more lasting scientific partnership. 

Expanding and enhancing the visa-free program, so it is accessible to a larger part of the 

population and removes some of the current bureaucratic restrictions (particularly on 

the Russian side) would also help facilitate more frequent communication and 

movement between Chukotka and Alaska. 

8.e.ii.2 Attempt to engage with the Russian government to lower 

bureaucratic barriers to cross-strait travel

The US and Russia must come to a renewed agreement to better facilitate travel across 

the region. 

At the moment, the visa-free program is not enough. On the Russian side, there are still 

many bureaucratic hoops through which Indigenous Peoples must jump to get the 

paperwork to cross to Alaska, despite the visa-free agreement. These procedures take 

time away from their families and jobs, and money, so many cannot afford such a 

luxury. 
29

On the Alaskan side, people wishing to travel to Russia are sometimes dissuaded by the 

widespread harassment by Russian authorities of Westerners in the region. Therefore, a 

more far-reaching agreement is needed between both governments in order to truly 

facilitate the travel that is so fervently desired by their citizens across the BSR. This goal 

could be achieved through bilateral discussions held between the relevant authorities, 

including DHS and Border Guards. 

CONCLUSION

Within our report we explored the possibilities for greater local and Indigenous 

engagement in the Bering Strait policymaking process, as well as the potential for these 

groups to leverage their ties with their family and neighbors on the other side of the 

strait to encourage US and Russian collaboration in the region. We found a great desire 

from these communities for these changes to be made, in order to be both more 

connected with the decision-making in Washington and more active within the 

diplomatic strategies taking place between the US and Russia.

The future of the Bering Strait Region is uncertain, but all stakeholders are bracing for 

sweeping changes in coming years. In order to navigate these changes, it is important 

that American policymakers empower local and Indigenous communities to contribute 

to the policies that will shape their adaptation. The stability of the region will also 

depend on the fruitful cooperation of the US and Russia. 

Although these rapid changes might seem daunting, we see them as a powerful 

opportunity for both countries to take the initiative and work on preventing and 

mitigating the harmful effects of the changing environment. The Bering Strait Region 

presents a space in which the US and Russia can set aside their differences and work 

together to improve the lives of their citizens, and secure a region which will become key 

in coming years. Involving local and Indigenous communities, who have lived in the 

region for centuries and know it best, will help these two countries to act, and not react, 

to the coming transformations. 

We strongly believe that policymakers have an opportunity to get ahead of major issues 

in the Bering Strait Region, but it will require changing gears. By adopting our 

recommendations, policymakers will be able to make better informed, more sustainable 

decisions in the Bering Strait, as well as increase the possibilities of a fruitful working 

relation with Russia in the Arctic. The time for the US to act is now, and we hope to see 

the current administration take advantage of this opportunity. 
30

Appendix 1: Intro Brief

Brown University Bering Strait Policy Team

Project Description:

Brown University’s Bering Strait Policy Team is composed of two graduate students 

from the Public Affairs program, working in collaboration with the USCG Academy’s 

Center for Arctic Study and Policy. They are researching how local and Indigenous 

Bering Strait Region communities and organizations can contribute to improved 

regional governance through utilizing and enhancing cross-strait community, cultural 

and family relationships. Decreasing ice coverage and increased activity in the Bering 

Strait will have profound effects on the Indigenous Peoples in the region. This increased 

activity is largely the result of the massive natural resource wealth contained in the 

Arctic, which will become recoverable as ice continues to melt. In addition, the Bering 

Strait presents an opportunity for the United States and Russia to cooperate and work 

with Indigenous Peoples to lay a foundation for enhancing domain awareness and 

improving governance. The team will conduct thorough literature reviews and field 

research to provide recommendations to the Coast Guard and others on enhancing 

cross-strait relations for improved governance in the region. Finally, the team will carry 

out in-person analyses and discussions in both Alaska and Washington DC and will be 

prepared to present recommendations by the end of March of 2017.

Research Trips:

● Anchorage, Alaska- February 6-11th, 2017. Will attend Alaska Forum on the 

Environment.

● Nome, Alaska - February 11th-13th, 2017.

● Washington DC - February 16th-21st, 2017.

Agenda for Meeting:

1. Can you tell us a little about your current position? What are your top goals 

during your tenure?

2. What are the key issues that you see in the Arctic, the Bering, and particularly the 

Bering Strait?

3. What do you see as the biggest threat to regional governance in the BSR? Why?

4. How can we improve regional governance in the BSR?
31

5. What are your thoughts on current cross-strait relations (in general, but also, for 

example, community, cultural and family relationships, relationships between 

state and local governments, and relationships between the US and Russia)?

6. Are successful cross-strait relations important for the BSR? Why or why not?

7. What is the biggest threat to cross-strait relations in the BSR? Why?

8. Do you believe enhancing cross-strait relations will improve regional governance 

in the BSR? 

9. How can we improve cross-strait relations?

10. What role should the Coast Guard and other government agencies play in this?

11. Are there points of agreement that we could approach the Russian government 

on to move towards an agreement in the Bering? Environment? Citizen 

participation?

12. Are we working enough with the Russians in the region now? Do you feel that 

there is a potential to form an agreement in the Bering region despite the 

impasses in other parts of the world?

13. Are we working enough with the Indigenous Peoples in the region now? Do you 

feel that they are sufficiently included in the decision-making?

14. Are we working enough with local organizations in the region now? Do you feel 

that they are sufficiently included in the decision-making?

15. What role do Indigenous Peoples play in the BSR? Is there anything that you 

think should change in regard to their role?

16. What role do local organizations play in the BSR? Is there anything that you think 

should change in regard to their role?

17. Is a shared vision and guiding objectives between US and Russia important for 

the region? Why?

18. How might these cross-strait relationships or networks serve as a foundation for 

the creation of a shared vision and guiding objectives by US and Russian 

responsible agencies? How might this be improved upon?

19. What role can cross-strait coordination/cooperation play in supporting the 

identification of protected areas and areas to be avoided, informing joint USRussia maritime management of the broader BSR region and enhancing 

environmental protection in the regional perspective?

20.Do you have any contacts we should talk to? Can you introduce us to those 

contacts or provide us contact information for them?

21. Are you interested in seeing our report and recommendations as we move 

forward? 
32

Appendix 2: Meet the Authors

Sonia Cuesta:

 Sonia Cuesta is currently attending Brown University as a Master of Public 

Affairs candidate with an expected graduation in May of 2017. She is concentrating in 

environmental studies and data.

 Prior to attending Brown University, Sonia attended Oxford University from 2012 

to 2016. She majored in French and Italian, and spent a semester abroad in both 

Montpellier and Florence. While attending Oxford she interned for Oxford Development 

Abroad for two years, a non-profit organization that works with Indigenous 

communities in Nepal, Uganda and Bolivia to create sustainable development projects 

that fit the guidelines of what the locals actually need, working closely with in-country 

agencies to ensure the success of their projects. As part of her work with ODA, Sonia 

spent six weeks in Bolivia building water cisterns, and helped coordinate the project the 

following year, which centered around biosand filters. 

 Sonia currently lives in Providence, Rhode Island. She hopes to pursue a job in 

the public policy field after graduating in May. 

Robyn Sundlee:

 Robyn Sundlee is currently attending Brown University as a Master of Public 

Affairs candidate with an expected graduation in May of 2017. She is concentrating in 

international policy and diplomacy.

 Robyn also attended Brown University from 2012 to 2016. She majored in 

International Relations and specialized in Persian-speaking regions. As an 

undergraduate she studied for a semester at University of London’s School of Oriental 

and African Studies. Robyn has spent her summers in Washington DC, interning as a 

researcher for the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and the Office of the United 

States Trade Representative. While at USTR, she conducted research, edited opinion 

pieces and drafted speeches to support the Trans Pacific Partnership. As a native of the 

Pacific Northwest, she has developed a great interest in Arctic issues and hopes to use 

her educational background to contribute to future Bering Strait policy.

 Robyn studies in Providence, Rhode Island where she also works as a teaching 

assistant for the Department of Public Policy. Following graduation in May, she will 

pursue a career in international diplomacy.
33

Bibliography

ACHP. "Consulting with Indian Tribes in the Section 106 Review Process." Consulting with Indian Tribes in 

the Section 106 Review Process. August 22, 2005. Accessed March 16, 2017. http://www.achp.gov/regstribes.html.

Administration of William J. Clinton. "Statement on Signing the Executive Order on Consultation and 

Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments." November 6, 2000. Accessed March 16, 2017. 

https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/nepapub/nepa_documents/RedDont/Req-EO13175tribgovt.pdf

Alaska Arctic Policy Commission. “Final Report of the Alaska Arctic Policy Commission. Juneau: State of 

Alaska.” 2015.

Alaska State Legislature. “Findings and Recommendations of the Alaska Northern Waters Task Force. 

Juneau: State of Alaska.” 2012

Arctic Council. “Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment.” 2009. Accessed March 18, 2017. 

http://www.pame.is/images/03_Projects/AMSA/AMSA_2009_report/AMSA_2009_Report_2nd_print

.pdf

Arctic Council. “Agreement on Cooperation on Aeronautical and Maritime Search and Rescue in the 

Arctic.” 2011 

Arctic Council. "Development of the People of the North: Results Achieved During Canada's Arctic 

Council Chairmanship 2013-2015." 2015. Accessed March 23, 2017. 

http://www.international.gc.ca/arctic-arctique/assets/pdfs/aclb-eng.pdf.

ArcticEcon. "United States – Russian Maritime Boundary and Exclusive Economic Zones." ArcticEcon. 

January 11, 2012. Accessed March 16, 2017. https://arcticecon.wordpress.com/2012/01/11/united-statesrussian-maritime-boundary-and-exclusive-economic-zones/.

Arctic Energy Center. "New Assessment Indicates Growing Russian Military Presence in the Arctic." 

Arctic Energy Center. January 18, 2017. Accessed April 08, 2017. http://arcticenergycenter.com/newassessment-indicates-growing-russian-military-presence-in-the-arctic/.

BBC. “Greenpeace assails oil rig in Russian Arctic.” BBC News. September 18, 2013. Retrieved from 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-24141667

Bering Air. "Alaska to Russia Flights | Russian Air Travel." Bering Air. Accessed March 16, 2017. 

http://www.beringair.com/russian-travel/.

Brehmer, Elwood. “Arctic Federal Water Bill Requires a Fresh Look at an Arctic Port for Alaska.” Accessed 

January 30, 2017. https://www.adn.com/arctic/2017/01/08/federal-water-bill-requires-a-fresh-look-atan-arctic-port-for-alaska/.

Brigham, L. “More Assets for the Arctic.” US Naval Institute Proceedings, 141(354). December 2015.

Canadian Environmental Agency. "Considering Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge in Environmental 

Assessments Conducted under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act." 2012. Accessed March 23, 

2017. https://www.canada.ca/en/environmental-assessment-agency/services/policyguidance/considering-aboriginal-traditional-knowledge-environmental-assessments-conducted-undercanadian-environmental-assessment-act-2012.html.
34

Carmel, S. “The Cold, Hard Realities of Arctic Shipping.” US Naval Institute Proceedings, 139(7), 38-41. 

2013.

Carmel, S. “Arctic Force Structure: What an Arctic Fleet Might Look Like.” Stanford: Hoover Institution. 

2014. Accessed March 16, 2017. http://www.hoover.org/research/arctic-force-structure-what-arctic-fleetmight-look

"Climate Change: The Reality of Relocation for Alaska Native Villages." April 2011. Accessed March 19, 

2017. http://tribalclimate.uoregon.edu/files/2010/11/AlaskaRelocation_04-13-11.pdf.

Croal, Peter. "CIDA: Traditional Knowledge." Accessed March 23, 2017. 

http://www.greenstar.org/butterflies/CIDA-Knowledge.htm.

CSIS. "History Lessons for the Arctic." History Lessons for the Arctic | Center for Strategic and 

International Studies. December 19, 2016. Accessed April 07, 2017. https://www.csis.org/events/historylessons-arctic.

Department of Defense. “Department of Defense Arctic Strategy.” Washington, DC: GPO. 2013.

Department of Defense. “Report to Congress on Strategy to Protect United States National Security 

Interests in the Arctic Region.” December 2016. 

Department of the Navy. “US Navy Arctic Roadmap 2014-2030.” Washington, DC: GPO. 2014

Emmerson, C. The Future History of the Arctic. New York: Public Affairs. 2010

Fairhall, D. Cold Front. Berkeley: Counterpoint. 2010.

Falsey, Jeannette Lee. "As a Luxury Cruise Ship Comes to Town, Nome Confronts its Future." Alaska 

Dispatch News. August 25, 2016. Accessed March 16, 2017. https://www.adn.com/alaskanews/2016/08/21/nome-rolls-out-warm-welcome-for-high-rolling-travelers-aboard-arctic-cruise/.

Ferris, Elizabeth. A Complex Constellation: Displacement, Climate Change and Arctic Peoples. Report. 

Brookings-LSE. 2013. https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/30-arctic-ferrispaper.pdf

Frink, Liam. A Tale of Three Villages: Indigenous-Colonial Interactions in Southwestern Alaska, 1740-

1950. Tucson: The University of Arizona Press, 2016.

Frost, Lauren. "National Park Service Predicts the Future of Shipping in the Bering Sea." KTOO. March 

06, 2017. Accessed March 16, 2017. http://www.ktoo.org/2017/03/04/national-park-service-predictsfuture-shipping-bering-sea/.

Goldenberg, Suzanne. "A new Titanic? US and Canada Prepare for Worst as Luxury Arctic Cruise Sets 

Sail." The Guardian. March 28, 2016. Accessed March 16, 2017. https://www.theguardian.com/usnews/2016/mar/28/us-canada-arctic-cruise-ship-titanic-emergency-training-coast-guard.

Gray, Patty A. The Predicament of Chukotka's Indigenous Movement: Post-Soviet Activism in the 

Russian Far North. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.

Gutierrez, A. “Lack of Dedicated Rescue Tug Causes Concern in Aleutians.” Alaska Public Media. 

December 9, 2010. Accessed March 16, 2017. http://www.alaskapublic.org/2010/12/09/lack-ofdedicated-rescue-tug-causes-concern-in-aleutians/

Hill, Fiona, and Clifford G. Gaddy. The Siberian Curse: How Communist Planners left Russia Out in the 

Cold. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 2003.
35

Huntington, H., Daniel, R., Hartsig, A., Harun, K., Heiman, M., Meehan, R., Noongwook,G., Pearson, L., 

Prior-Parks, M. Robards, M. & Stetson, G. “Vessels, risks and rules: Planning for safe shipping in Bering 

Strait. Marine Policy.” 2014. Accessed March 16, 2017. 

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308597X14002012

ICC. "Strategic Plan 2014-2018." Accessed March 23, 2017. http://iccalaska.org/wp-icc/wpcontent/uploads/2016/01/ICC-StratPlan-2014-2018_v9-low-res.pdf.

Jensen, Donald N. "The End of the Affair: Abramovich Leaves Chukotka." Institute of Modern Russia. 

July 18, 2013. Accessed March 16, 2017. https://imrussia.org/en/analysis/politics/515-the-end-of-theaffair-abramovich-leaves-chukotka.

Kawerak. "Traditional Knowledge." Accessed March 14, 2017.

http://www.kawerak.org/forms/nr/Kawerak%20TK%20def.pdf.

Landreth, N. “If you're going to talk about arctic shipping, talk to Alaska's tribes.” Alaska Dispatch News. 

September 1, 2015. Accessed March 16, 2017. http://www.adn.com/article/20150901/if-youre-going-talkabout-arctic-shipping-talk-alaskas-tribes

Laruelle, Marlène. New Mobilities and Social Changes in Russia's Arctic Regions. Abingdon, Oxon: 

Routledge, 2017.

MarEx. "U.S. Releases Revised Arctic Strategy." The Maritime Executive. February 3, 2017. Accessed 

March 19, 2017. http://maritime-executive.com/article/us-releases-revised-arctic-strategy.

Mathews, Jay. "From Nome, Trying to Open the Back Door to the Soviet Union." The Washington Post. 

December 07, 1987. Accessed March 16, 2017. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1987/12/07/from-nome-trying-to-open-the-backdoor-to-the-soviet-union/1487005c-5c66-42b8-8808-8c2b6a6937ef/?utm_term=.dd9d5ee0c43b.

Mauer, Richard. "Anchorage Journal; Soviet Rock-and-Roll Bridges the Bering Strait." The New York 

Times. February 26, 1989. Accessed March 16, 2017. 

http://www.nytimes.com/1989/02/27/us/anchorage-journal-soviet-rock-and-roll-bridges-the-beringstrait.html.

McKenzie, J., Klarich, S., Ardrey, C. & Lagor, K. The Bering Strait: Reducing Risk Through International 

Cooperation and Capabilities Improvements. 2016.

Miller, Robert J. "Consultation or Consent: The United States' Duty to Confer with American Indian 

Governments ." North Dakota Law Review 91:37:37-98. 

https://law.und.edu/_files/docs/ndlr/pdf/issues/91/1/91ndlr37.pdf.

Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation. Letter to the Embassy of the United States in 

Moscow. November 30, 2015.

Mooney, Chris. "Behind Obama's $400 Million Budget Request to Relocate Entire Alaska villages." Alaska 

Dispatch News. May 31, 2016. Accessed March 19, 2017. https://www.adn.com/ruralalaska/article/behind-obamas-400-million-budget-request-relocate-entire-alaska-villages/2016/02/10/.

National Park Service. "U.S. National Park Service." National Park Service. Accessed March 16, 2017. 

https://www.nps.gov/akso/beringia/about/index.cfm.

"North Pacific Overfishing (DONUT)." Donut Case. Accessed March 16, 2017. 

http://www1.american.edu/ted/donut.htm.
36

Novaya Gazeta. "Russia: Indigenous Hunters Association Pressured to Register as "Foreign Agents"." 

International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs (IWGIA). December 11, 2014. Accessed March 16, 2017. 

http://www.iwgia.org/news/search-news?news_id=1139.

Observer, Navajo-Hopi. "Navajo Council Delegate Brown Asking for Tribal Representation at United 

Nations." Http://www.nhonews.com. February 7, 2017. Accessed March 16, 2017. 

http://www.nhonews.com/news/2017/feb/07/navajo-council-delegate-brown-asking-tribal-repres/.

O'Rourke, R. “Changes in the Arctic background and issues for Congress” (United States., Congressional 

Research Service). Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress. 2010.

Østhagen, Andreas. "Coast Guard Cooperation with Russia in the Arctic." Arctic Deeply. July 20, 2016. 

Accessed March 16, 2017. https://www.newsdeeply.com/arctic/community/2016/07/20/coast-guardcooperation-with-russia-in-the-arctic.

Page, Samantha. "This Luxury Cruise Liner Is On The Front Lines Of Climate Change." ThinkProgress. 

August 19, 2016. Accessed March 16, 2017. https://thinkprogress.org/arctic-biggest-cruise-ship-everea7b71e9844f#.27gzx5jax.

Paxton, Robin. "Remote Russian Region Builds on Billionaire's Legacy." Reuters. August 12, 2009. 

Accessed March 16, 2017. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-abramovichidUSTRE57C02E20090813.

Pincus, Rebecca. “The Coast Guard Forum: A Welcome and Important Step”, Arctic Yearbook, October 

2015, Accessed April 9, 2017. http://www.arcticyearbook.com/commentaries2015/169-the-arctic-coastguard-forum-a-welcome-and-important-step

Ramseur, David. “Alaska has lessons for Trump in working with Russia”, Alaska Dispatch News, 

November 19, 2016, Accessed March 29, 2017. https://www.adn.com/opinions/2016/11/19/trumpshould-look-to-alaska-in-working-with-putin/

Raymond-Yakoubian, Julie, and Lily Gadamus. "A Bering Strait Indigenous Framework for Resource 

Management: Respectful Seal and Walrus Hunting." Accessed March 14, 2017. 

http://www.kawerak.org/forms/nr/Respectful%20hunting%20article.pdf.

Reed Smith. "Overview of the U.S. and EU Sanctions on Russia." Reed Smith. October 2014. Accessed 

March 16, 2017. https://www.reedsmith.com/files/Publication/9221cf81-e4f7-4907-ab2cf7dc249eac58/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/441e0ec9-dbd8-4c3a-b1fa-0bf7ed4d5872/alert_14-

255.pdf.

Reiss, B. The Eskimo and the Oil Man: The Battle at the Top of the World for America's Future. New 

York: Business Plus. 2012.

Revkin, Andrew C. "Where Ice Once Crushed Ships, Open Water Beckons." The New York Times. 

September 24, 2016. Accessed April 08, 2017. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/25/opinion/sunday/where-ice-once-crushed-ships-open-waterbeckons.html?_r=0.

Rufe, R., & Huntington, H. “Arctic Shipping: A Route to Russian-American Cooperation.” November 20, 

2014. Accessed March 16, 2017. http://russiancouncil.ru/en/inner/?id_4=4806#top-content

Russian Federation. “Basics of the State Policy of the Russian Federation in the Arctic the Period Till 2020 

and for a Further Perspective.” 2008. Accessed March 16, 2017. 

http://www.arcticgovernance.org/getfile.php/1042958.1529.avuqcurreq/Russian+Strategy.pdf
37

Russell, Emily “Visa-Free Travel to Russia Reinstated for Eligible Alaska Natives”, Alaska Public Media, 

April 10, 2015, accessed April 9, 2017. http://www.alaskapublic.org/2015/08/10/visa-free-travel-torussia-reinstated-for-eligible-alaska-natives/

Sergunin, Alexander, and Valery Konyshev. "Modernisation or Militarisation?" The Arctic Journal. 

February 18, 2016. Accessed April 08, 2017. http://arcticjournal.com/opinion/2158/modernisation-ormilitarisation.

Shadian, J. “Remaking Arctic governance: The construction of an Arctic Inuit polity.” Polar Record, 

42(03), 249. 2006.

Slayton, D., and L. Brigham “Russia and US Must Maintain Arctic Relations in an Interconnected World.” 

Alaska Dispatch News. May 10, 2015. Accessed March 16, 2017. 

http://www.adn.com/article/20150510/russia-and-us-must-maintain-arctic-relations-interconnectedworld

Staalesen, A. “China's new foothold on Northern Sea Route.” Barents Observer. November 26, 2010.

Staalesen, A. “Chinese Giant Mulls More Northern Sea Route Shipping.” Barents Observer. August 18, 

2015.

Spencer, Hal. "At Last, Warm Glances Across the Bering Strait." The New York Times. July 13, 1988. 

Accessed March 16, 2017. http://www.nytimes.com/1988/07/14/us/at-last-warm-glances-across-thebering-strait.html?pagewanted=all.

Sustainable Development Working Group, Arctic Council. "Recommendations for the Integration of 

Traditional and Local Knowledge into the Work of the Arctic Council." April 2015. Accessed March 23, 

2017. https://oaarchive.arcticcouncil.org/bitstream/handle/11374/412/ACMMCA09_Iqaluit_2015_SDWG_Traditional_and_Local_K

nowledge_Recommendations.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y.

Swann, Kirsten. "Mission to Chukotka." Alaska Dispatch News. October 30, 2016. Accessed March 16, 

2017. https://www.adn.com/features/alaska-life/we-alaskans/2016/10/30/mission-to-chukotka/.

Swann, Kirsten. "Mission to Chukotka: What Etta found." Arctic Now. November 1, 2016. Accessed March 

16, 2017. http://www.arcticnow.com/culture/2016/10/30/mission-to-chukotka-what-etta-found-2/.

The Associated Press. "Alaska Seeks Federal Money to Move a Village Threatened by Climate Change." 

The New York Times. October 03, 2015. Accessed March 19, 2017. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/04/us/alaska-seeks-federal-money-to-move-a-village-threatened-byclimate-change.html?_r=0. 

The White House. NSPD-66/HSPD 25. January 9, 2009. Accessed March 16, 2017. 

https://www.nsf.gov/geo/plr/opp_advisory/briefings/may2009/nspd66_hspd25.pdf

The White House. "Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies." November 5, 

2009. Accessed March 16, 2017. 

https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/Presidential%20Memorandum%20Tribal%20Consultation%20%282

009%29.pdf.

The White House. “Joint Statement of the President of the United States of America and the President of 

the Russian Federation on Cooperation in the Bering Strait Region.” May 26, 2011. Accessed March 16, 

2017. https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/05/26/joint-statement-president-unitedstates-america-and-president-russian-fe
38

The White House. “ National Maritime Domain Awareness Plan for the National Strategy for Maritime 

Security.” December, 2013. Accessed March 16, 2017. 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/national_maritime_domain_awareness_plan.pdf

The White House. “National Strategy for the Arctic Region.” 2013. Accessed March 16, 2017. 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/nat_arctic_strategy.pdf

The White House. “Implementation Plan for the National Strategy for the Arctic Region.” Washington, 

DC: GPO. 2014.

The White House. “Fact Sheet: President Obama Announces New Investments to Enhance Safety and 

Security in the Changing Arctic.” September 1, 2015. Accessed March 16, 2017. 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/09/01/fact-sheet-president-obama-announces-newinvestments-enhance-safety-and

The White House. "Executive Order Northern Bering Sea Climate Resilience." National Archives and 

Records Administration. December 9, 2016. Accessed March 16, 2017. 

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2016/12/09/executive-order-northern-beringsea-climate-resilience.

Treadwell, Mead. "Reflections of Friendship Flight: 25 Years Later." Alaska World Affairs. November 1, 

2013. Accessed March 16, 2017. Treadwell, Mead. "Reflections of Friendship Flight: 25 Years Later." 

November 1, 2013. Accessed March 16, 2017. http://www.alaskaworldaffairs.org/wpcontent/uploads/2014/07/FriendshipFlight_revised_11.12.pdf .

United Nations. “United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982.” 2013. Accessed 

March 16, 2017. 

http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/convention_overview_convention.htm

United Nations. "United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples." September 13, 2007. 

Accessed March 23, 2017. 

http://www.bing.com/cr?IG=27387320282B413CAF9A00D3573D0AE0&CID=027E948596C463A5026

D9ECB97F5623C&rd=1&h=oJRmwJGy36ScgESLB0o67v9yLNs_Ahr7VWqE_6G0pGw&v=1&r=http%3a

%2f%2fwww.un.org%2fesa%2fsocdev%2funpfii%2fdocuments%2fDRIPS_en.pdf&p=DevEx,5062.1.

United States Coast Guard. “United States Coast Guard Arctic Strategy.” Washington, DC: GPO. 2013.

United States Coast Guard. “Port Access Route Study: In the Chukchi Sea, Bering Strait and Bering Sea.” 

December 5, 2014. Accessed March 16, 2017. https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/12/05/2014-

28672/port-access-route-study-in-the-chukchi-sea-bering-strait-and-bering-sea

United States District Court for the District of South Dakota. "Lower Brule Sioux Tribe v. Deer, 911 F. 

Supp. 395 (D.S.D. 1995)." Justia Law. 1995. Accessed March 16, 2017. 

http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/911/395/1971010/.

United States Fish and Wildlife Services. “Working Effectively with Alaska Native Tribes and 

Organizations: Desk Guide.” Accessed March 16, 2017.

http://www.fws.gov/alaska/external/pdf/native_affairs_desk_guide_fws.pdf

United States of America. Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears. November 15, 1973. 

United States of America. Agreement between the Government of the United States of America and the 

Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on Mutual Fisheries Relations. 1988.

United States Senate. Agreement with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the Maritime Boundary. 

1990.
39

United States of America. Improving Tribal Consultation and Tribal Involvement in Federal 

Infrastructure Decisions. January 2017.

United States of America. The Convention on the Conservation and Management of the Pollock 

Resources in the Central Bering Sea. 1994.

Uutiset. “Finland Hopes to Get in On Massive Us Icebreaker Investment.” February 9, 2015. Accessed 

March 16, 2017. 

http://yle.fi/uutiset/finland_hopes_to_get_in_on_massive_us_icebreaker_investment/8275220

Vesti.ru. "U.S. and Russia introduce visa-free travel for Chukotka and Alaska." Russia Beyond The 

Headlines. July 23, 2015. Accessed March 16, 2017. 

http://rbth.com/international/2015/07/23/us_and_russia_introduce_visafree_travel_for_chukotka_and_alask_47981.html.

Vidal, John. "'Extraordinarily hot' Arctic temperatures alarm scientists." The Guardian. November 22, 

2016. Accessed March 16, 2017. 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/nov/22/extraordinarily-hot-arctic-temperaturesalarm-scientists.

Wagstyl, Stefan. "Abramovich & Chukotka: Still Friends." Financial Times. July 2, 2013. Accessed March 

16, 2017. http://blogs.ft.com/beyond-brics/2013/07/02/abramovich-chukotka-still-friends/.

Waldhotz, Rachel. “Alaskan Village, Citing Climate Change, Seeks Disaster Relief in Order to Relocate” 

NPR, January 10, 2017, accessed March 30, 2017. http://www.npr.org/2017/01/10/509176361/alaskanvillage-citing-climate-change-seeks-disaster-relief-in-order-to-relocate

Watts, Simon. "Swim that Broke Cold War Ice Curtain." BBC News. August 08, 2012. Accessed April 07, 

2017. http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-19149829.

Wheeler, Nicholas. "Alaska, Chukotka, and the Oligarch Governor." Wilson Center. January 12, 2015. 

Accessed March 16, 2017. https://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/alaska-chukotka-and-the-oligarchgovernor.

Ybanez, A. “Russia's Novatek Grabs Big Investment from China for Arctic LNG Project.” Yibada. January 

19, 2015. Accessed March 16, 2017. http://en.yibada.com/articles/39411/20150619/russia-novatekgrabs-big-investment-from-china-arctic-lnp-project.htm

Zolotukhin, A., & Gavrilov, V. “Russian Arctic Petroleum Resources: Challenges and Future 

Opportunities.” OTC Arctic Technology Conference. 2011.
40

ENDNOTES

 

1 Brehmer, Elwood. “Arctic Federal Water Bill Requires a Fresh Look at an Arctic Port for Alaska.” 

Accessed January 30, 2017. https://www.adn.com/arctic/2017/01/08/federal-water-bill-requires-afresh-look-at-an-arctic-port-for-alaska/.

2 Vidal, John. "'Extraordinarily hot' Arctic temperatures alarm scientists." The Guardian. November 22, 

2016. Accessed March 16, 2017. 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/nov/22/extraordinarily-hot-arctic-temperaturesalarm-scientists.

3 Citizen-led initiatives such as the friendship flight in 1988, as well as mediatic events involving Lynn Cox 

and Dixie Belcher, which are described in detail in later sections, served to bring both countries closer at a 

time when friendly US-Russian relations seemed highly unlikely.

4 Ramseur, David. “Alaska has lessons for Trump in working with Russia”, Alaska Dispatch News, 

November 19, 2016, Accessed March 29, 2017. https://www.adn.com/opinions/2016/11/19/trumpshould-look-to-alaska-in-working-with-putin/ 

5 Waldholz, Rachel. “Alaskan Village, Citing Climate Change, Seeks Disaster Relief in Order to Relocate” 

NPR, January 10, 2017, accessed March 30, 2017. http://www.npr.org/2017/01/10/509176361/alaskanvillage-citing-climate-change-seeks-disaster-relief-in-order-to-relocate

6 Ibid.

7 Arctic Energy Center. "New Assessment Indicates Growing Russian Military Presence in the Arctic." 

Arctic Energy Center. January 18, 2017. Accessed April 08, 2017. http://arcticenergycenter.com/newassessment-indicates-growing-russian-military-presence-in-the-arctic/.

8 Ferris, Elizabeth. A Complex Constellation: Displacement, Climate Change and Arctic Peoples. Report. 

Brookings-LSE. 2013. 

https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/30-arctic-ferris-paper.pdf

9 Frink, Liam. A Tale of Three Villages: Indigenous-Colonial Interactions in Southwestern Alaska, 1740-

1950. Tucson: The University of Arizona Press, 2016.

10 Vesti.ru. "U.S. and Russia introduce visa-free travel for Chukotka and Alaska." Russia Beyond The 

Headlines. July 23, 2015. Accessed March 16, 2017. 

http://rbth.com/international/2015/07/23/us_and_russia_introduce_visafree_travel_for_chukotka_and_alask_47981.html.

11 McKenzie, J., Klarich, S., Ardrey, C. & Lagor, K. “The Bering Strait: Reducing Risk Through 

International Cooperation and Capabilities Improvements.” (Unpublished master’s thesis). Brown 

University, Providence, RI. 2016.

12 United States of America. Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears. November 15, 1973.

13 United Nations. “United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982.” 2013. 

Accessed March 16, 2017.

14 United States of America. Agreement between the Government of the United States of America and the 

Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on Mutual Fisheries Relations. 1988.

15 Agreement between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Union 

of Soviet Socialist Republics Concerning Fisheries off the Coasts of the United States (amended in 1976) 

and Agreement between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the 

Union of Soviet Socialist Republics Concerning Fisheries off the Coasts of the Union of Soviet Socialist 

Republics (February 1988).

16 United States Senate. Agreement with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the Maritime 

Boundary. 1990.

17 Ibid.

18 United States of America. The Convention on the Conservation and Management of the Pollock 

Resources in the Central Bering Sea. 1994.

19"North Pacific Overfishing (DONUT)." Donut Case. Accessed March 16, 2017. 

http://www1.american.edu/ted/donut.htm.

20 The White House. “Joint Statement of the President of the United States of America and the President 

of the Russian Federation on Cooperation in the Bering Strait Region.” May 26, 2011. Accessed March 16, 
41

 

2017. https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/05/26/joint-statement-president-unitedstates-america-and-president-russian-fe

21 Ibid.

22 ACHP. "Consulting with Indian Tribes in the Section 106 Review Process." Consulting with Indian 

Tribes in the Section 106 Review Process. August 22, 2005. Accessed March 16, 2017. 

http://www.achp.gov/regs-tribes.html.

23 United States District Court for the District of South Dakota. "Lower Brule Sioux Tribe v. Deer, 911 F. 

Supp. 395 (D.S.D. 1995)." Justia Law. 1995. Accessed March 16, 2017. 

http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/911/395/1971010/.

24 Ibid. 

25 Administration of William J. Clinton. "Statement on Signing the Executive Order on Consultation and 

Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments." November 6, 2000. Accessed March 16, 2017. 

https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/nepapub/nepa_documents/RedDont/Req-EO13175tribgovt.pdf.

26 The White House. "Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies." November 5, 

2009. Accessed March 16, 2017. 

https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/Presidential%20Memorandum%20Tribal%20Consultation%20%282

009%29.pdf.

27 United Nations. "United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples." September 13, 

2007. Accessed March 23, 2017. 

http://www.bing.com/cr?IG=27387320282B413CAF9A00D3573D0AE0&CID=027E948596C463A5026

D9ECB97F5623C&rd=1&h=oJRmwJGy36ScgESLB0o67v9yLNs_Ahr7VWqE_6G0pGw&v=1&r=http%3a

%2f%2fwww.un.org%2fesa%2fsocdev%2funpfii%2fdocuments%2fDRIPS_en.pdf&p=DevEx,5062.1.

28 Miller, Robert J. "Consultation or Consent: The United States' Duty to Confer with American Indian 

Governments ." North Dakota Law Review 91:37:37-98. 

https://law.und.edu/_files/docs/ndlr/pdf/issues/91/1/91ndlr37.pdf.

29 Gray, Patty A. The Predicament of Chukotka's Indigenous Movement: Post-Soviet Activism in the 

Russian Far North. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. pxii. 

30 Wheeler, Nicholas. "Alaska, Chukotka, and the Oligarch Governor." Wilson Center. January 12, 2015. 

Accessed March 16, 2017. https://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/alaska-chukotka-and-the-oligarchgovernor.

31 Gray, Patty A. The Predicament of Chukotka's Indigenous Movement: Post-Soviet Activism in the 

Russian Far North. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. p80. 

32 Hill, Fiona, and Clifford G. Gaddy. The Siberian Curse: How Communist Planners left Russia Out in 

the Cold. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 2003. p172.

33 Ibid.

34 Paxton, Robin. "Remote Russian Region Builds on Billionaire's Legacy." Reuters. August 12, 2009. 

Accessed March 16, 2017. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-abramovichidUSTRE57C02E20090813.

35 Hill, Fiona, and Clifford G. Gaddy. The Siberian Curse: How Communist Planners left Russia Out in 

the Cold. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 2003. p172.

36 Wagstyl, Stefan. "Abramovich & Chukotka: Still Friends." Financial Times. July 2, 2013. Accessed 

March 16, 2017. http://blogs.ft.com/beyond-brics/2013/07/02/abramovich-chukotka-still-friends/.

37 Paxton, Robin. "Remote Russian Region Builds on Billionaire's Legacy." Reuters. August 12, 2009. 

Accessed March 16, 2017. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-abramovichidUSTRE57C02E20090813.

38 Laruelle, Marlène. New Mobilities and Social Changes in Russia's Arctic Regions. Abingdon, Oxon: 

Routledge, 2017.

39 Ibid.

40 Spencer, Hal. "At Last, Warm Glances Across the Bering Strait." The New York Times. July 13, 1988. 

Accessed March 16, 2017. http://www.nytimes.com/1988/07/14/us/at-last-warm-glances-across-thebering-strait.html?pagewanted=all.

41 Treadwell, Mead. "Reflections of Friendship Flight: 25 Years Later." Alaska World Affairs. November 1, 

2013. Accessed March 16, 2017. Treadwell, Mead. "Reflections of Friendship Flight: 25 Years Later." 

November 1, 2013. Accessed March 16, 2017. http://www.alaskaworldaffairs.org/wpcontent/uploads/2014/07/FriendshipFlight_revised_11.12.pdf .
42

 

42 Spencer, Hal. "At Last, Warm Glances Across the Bering Strait." The New York Times. July 13, 1988. 

Accessed April 07, 2017. http://www.nytimes.com/1988/07/14/us/at-last-warm-glances-across-thebering-strait.html?pagewanted=all.

43 Watts, Simon. "Swim that Broke Cold War Ice Curtain." BBC News. August 08, 2012. Accessed April 07, 

2017. http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-19149829.

44 Mauer, Richard. "Anchorage Journal; Soviet Rock-and-Roll Bridges the Bering Strait." The New York 

Times. February 26, 1989. Accessed March 16, 2017. 

http://www.nytimes.com/1989/02/27/us/anchorage-journal-soviet-rock-and-roll-bridges-the-beringstrait.html.

45 Russell, Emily. “Visa-Free Travel to Russia Reinstated for Eligible Alaska Natives”, Alaska Public 

Media, April 10, 2015, accessed April 9, 2017. http://www.alaskapublic.org/2015/08/10/visa-free-travelto-russia-reinstated-for-eligible-alaska-natives/

46 Bering Air. "Alaska to Russia Flights | Russian Air Travel." Bering Air. Accessed March 16, 2017. 

http://www.beringair.com/russian-travel/.

47Swann, Kirsten. "Mission to Chukotka." Alaska Dispatch News. October 30, 2016. Accessed March 16, 

2017. https://www.adn.com/features/alaska-life/we-alaskans/2016/10/30/mission-to-chukotka/.

48 Revkin, Andrew C. "Where Ice Once Crushed Ships, Open Water Beckons." The New York Times. 

September 24, 2016. Accessed April 08, 2017. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/25/opinion/sunday/where-ice-once-crushed-ships-open-waterbeckons.html?_r=0.

49 Falsey, Jeannette Lee. "As a Luxury Cruise Ship Comes to Town, Nome Confronts its Future." Alaska 

Dispatch News. August 25, 2016. Accessed March 16, 2017. https://www.adn.com/alaskanews/2016/08/21/nome-rolls-out-warm-welcome-for-high-rolling-travelers-aboard-arctic-cruise/.

50 Goldenberg, Suzanne. "A new Titanic? US and Canada Prepare for Worst as Luxury 

Arctic Cruise Sets Sail." The Guardian. March 28, 2016. Accessed March 16, 2017. 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/mar/28/us-canada-arctic-cruise-ship-titanic-emergencytraining-coast-guard.

51Page, Samantha. "This Luxury Cruise Liner Is On The Front Lines Of Climate Change." ThinkProgress. 

August 19, 2016. Accessed March 16, 2017. https://thinkprogress.org/arctic-biggest-cruise-ship-everea7b71e9844f#.27gzx5jax.

52 Frost, Lauren. "National Park Service Predicts the Future of Shipping in the Bering Sea." KTOO. March 

06, 2017. Accessed March 16, 2017. http://www.ktoo.org/2017/03/04/national-park-service-predictsfuture-shipping-bering-sea/ .

53Ibid.

54 Rebecca Pincus, “The Coast Guard Forum: A Welcome and Important Step”, Arctic Yearbook, October 

2015, Accessed April 9, 2017. http://www.arcticyearbook.com/commentaries2015/169-the-arctic-coastguard-forum-a-welcome-and-important-step

55 Østhagen, Andreas. "Coast Guard Cooperation with Russia in the Arctic." Arctic Deeply. July 20, 2016. 

Accessed March 16, 2017. https://www.newsdeeply.com/arctic/community/2016/07/20/coast-guardcooperation-with-russia-in-the-arctic.

56The White House. "Executive Order Northern Bering Sea Climate Resilience." National Archives and 

Records Administration. December 9, 2016. Accessed March 16, 2017. 

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2016/12/09/executive-order-northern-beringsea-climate-resilience.

57 The White House. "Executive Order Northern Bering Sea Climate Resilience." National Archives and 

Records Administration. December 9, 2016. Accessed March 16, 2017. 

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2016/12/09/executive-order-northern-beringsea-climate-resilience.

58 United States of America. Improving Tribal Consultation and Tribal Involvement in Federal 

Infrastructure Decisions. January 2017.

59 Disclaimer: we encountered this report while editing the second draft of our proposal, as it had not been 

mentioned by any of our interview subjects. Although our findings strongly reflect and substantiate those 

found by the federal report, they were not in any way influenced or biased by it. Furthermore, this article 

was released recently and its effects cannot yet be ascertained, and it did not focus specifically on the BSR. 

60 Ibid.
43

 

61 Ibid.

62 Observer, Navajo-Hopi. "Navajo Council Delegate Brown Asking for Tribal Representation at United 

Nations." Http://www.nhonews.com. February 7, 2017. Accessed March 16, 2017. 

http://www.nhonews.com/news/2017/feb/07/navajo-council-delegate-brown-asking-tribal-repres/.

63 Ibid.

64 Reports accessed at www.kawerak.org/socialsci.html

65 Gray, Patty A. The Predicament of Chukotka's Indigenous Movement: Post-Soviet Activism in the 

Russian Far North. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.

66 Ibid. 178

67Ibid. p178.

68Novaya Gazeta. "Russia: Indigenous Hunters Association Pressured to Register as "Foreign Agents"." 

International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs (IWGIA). December 11, 2014. Accessed March 16, 2017. 

http://www.iwgia.org/news/search-news?news_id=1139.

69 Jensen, Donald N. "The End of the Affair: Abramovich Leaves Chukotka." Institute of Modern Russia. 

July 18, 2013. Accessed March 16, 2017. https://imrussia.org/en/analysis/politics/515-the-end-of-theaffair-abramovich-leaves-chukotka.

70 Jensen, Donald N. "The End of the Affair: Abramovich Leaves Chukotka." Institute of Modern Russia. 

July 18, 2013. Accessed March 16, 2017. https://imrussia.org/en/analysis/politics/515-the-end-of-theaffair-abramovich-leaves-chukotka.

71 Hill, Fiona, and Clifford G. Gaddy. The Siberian Curse: How Communist Planners left Russia Out in 

the Cold. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 2003. p119.

72 Ibid. p172.

73 Ibid. p126.

74 Swann, Kirsten. "Mission to Chukotka: What Etta found." Arctic Now. November 1, 2016. Accessed 

March 16, 2017. http://www.arcticnow.com/culture/2016/10/30/mission-to-chukotka-what-etta-found2/.

75National Park Service. "U.S. National Park Service." National Park Service. Accessed March 16, 2017. 

https://www.nps.gov/akso/beringia/about/index.cfm.

76 Ibid.

77Ibid.

78 Sergunin, Alexander, and Valery Konyshev. "Modernisation or Militarisation?" The Arctic Journal. 

February 18, 2016. Accessed April 08, 2017. http://arcticjournal.com/opinion/2158/modernisation-ormilitarisation.

79 Arctic Council. "Development of the People of the North: Results Achieved During Canada's Arctic 

Council Chairmanship 2013-2015." 2015. Accessed March 23, 2017. 

http://www.international.gc.ca/arctic-arctique/assets/pdfs/aclb-eng.pdf.

80 Canadian Environmental Agency. "Considering Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge in Environmental 

Assessments Conducted under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act." 2012. Accessed March 23, 

2017. https://www.canada.ca/en/environmental-assessment-agency/services/policyguidance/considering-aboriginal-traditional-knowledge-environmental-assessments-conducted-undercanadian-environmental-assessment-act-2012.html.

81 Ibid.

82 Croal, Peter. "CIDA: Traditional Knowledge." Accessed March 23, 2017. 

http://www.greenstar.org/butterflies/CIDA-Knowledge.htm.

83 Ibid.

84 United States of America. Improving Tribal Consultation and Tribal Involvement in Federal 

Infrastructure Decisions. January 2017.

85 Ibid.

86 United States of America. Improving Tribal Consultation and Tribal Involvement in Federal 

Infrastructure Decisions. January 2017.

87 Ibid.

88 Ibid.

89 United States of America. Improving Tribal Consultation and Tribal Involvement in Federal 

Infrastructure Decisions. January 2017.
44

 

90 CSIS. "History Lessons for the Arctic." History Lessons for the Arctic | Center for Strategic and 

International Studies. December 19, 2016. Accessed April 07, 2017. https://www.csis.org/events/historylessons-arctic.

91 Sustainable Development Working Group, Arctic Council. "Recommendations for the Integration of 

Traditional and Local Knowledge into the Work of the Arctic Council." April 2015. Accessed March 23, 

2017. https://oaarchive.arcticcouncil.org/bitstream/handle/11374/412/ACMMCA09_Iqaluit_2015_SDWG_Traditional_and_Local_K

nowledge_Recommendations.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y.

92 Mauer, Richard. "Anchorage Journal; Soviet Rock-and-Roll Bridges the Bering Strait." The New York 

Times. February 26, 1989. Accessed March 16, 2017. 

http://www.nytimes.com/1989/02/27/us/anchorage-journal-soviet-rock-and-roll-bridges-the-beringstrait.html.