Constructing an 'Old Norwegian Land': Spitsbergen and the early history of Norwegian Arctic Imperialism, 1896-1925.
The history of how it was decided in 1920 that Spitsbergen (Svalbard) should become Norwegian was shaped by the construction of a historical narrative about the loss of a medieval Norwegian empire in the Arctic Ocean, and a political desire to reclaim it. This phenomenon has been commonly referred t...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Master Thesis |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
2022
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://hdl.handle.net/10852/96428 http://urn.nb.no/URN:NBN:no-98927 |
| Summary: | The history of how it was decided in 1920 that Spitsbergen (Svalbard) should become Norwegian was shaped by the construction of a historical narrative about the loss of a medieval Norwegian empire in the Arctic Ocean, and a political desire to reclaim it. This phenomenon has been commonly referred to as ishavsimperialisme, or Arctic imperialism. This thesis aims to tell the story of Arctic imperialism and the people who supported it. How did they construct a narrative of Spitsbergen belonging to Norway? What influence did they have on the decision to try and gain sovereignty over the archipelago, and on the creation of the Spitsbergen treaty at the Paris Peace Conference in the fall of 1919 until its signing in 1920? Through a broad survey of Norwegian newspaper sources between 1896 – when Fridtjof Nansen’s Fram expedition returned and triggered a debate about a Norwegian annexation of Spitsbergen – and 1925, when Norwegian sovereignty over the archipelago was actualized, as well as transcripts of parliamentary debates and documents from the Norwegian delegation to the Paris Peace Conference, I explore the ideological birth and influence of the Arctic imperialists. I argue that for much of the period, their notion that Spitsbergen was rightfully Norwegian was relatively marginal in the broader public discourse, and that there was a notable degree of reluctance and disinterest towards Spitsbergen. I show that this status quo only changes significantly from 1916, and that by 1918 and the end of the First World War, the combined interests of Arctic imperialists and Norwegian businesses on Spitsbergen convinced the government to work towards sovereignty over the islands. Finally, I explore the relatively negative reactions to the treaty among Arctic imperialists, and show how they struggled but eventually succeeded to create a narrative of the Spitsbergen treaty as a Norwegian triumph. |
|---|