The Underbelly of Oryong 501’s Sinking

OryongSinking
Early in the morning of December 2, the factory trawler Oryong 501 sank into the frigid depths of the Bering Sea off of Russia’s east coast. A large wave hit the vessel as it hauled in a catch of pollock. Though the ship was South Korean-flagged, BBC News reports that 35 Indonesians, 13 Filipinos, 11 South Koreans and one Russian inspector were onboard at the time of the sinking; so far, 27 have been confirmed dead and 8 rescued, with the others missing. These figures indicate one of the dark underbellies of Oryong 501′s calamitous end: the use of Southeast Asian labor on factory trawlers. In August 2010, Oyang 70 sank in New Zealand waters. In a story that parallels that of Oryong 501, Kiwi newspaper The Press explained

“Five Indonesians, all working in brutal conditions with low or no wages, died because, as coroner Richard McElrea found in a report out yesterday, the Korean officers of the 38-year-old ship abandoned the low-wage Indonesians and Filipinos as the ship sank. “It was a matter of every man for himself.”

It should come as no surprise that Oyang 70 and Oryong 501 were owned by the same South Korean fishing company: Sajo Oryang, which has the undesirable distinction of being on Greenpeace’s International Blacklist for companies and vessels involved in illegal, unregulated, and unreported fishing.

Asia(ns) in the Arctic

Southeast Asian labor is prominent throughout the Arctic: Thai cooks staff the cafeterias of Svalbard, while Filipinos work in Iqaluit, Canada and Nuuk, Greenland. This northernmost reach of Asian diasporas and fishing boats goes to show that Asia is already in the Arctic, but in a more stratified way than often presented by the media. On the factory trawlers, Southeast Asian labor is used to help extract Arctic resources for consumption in wealthy Asian nations like South Korea and Japan.

While most of the reporting on South Korean interests has to do with the emergence of Arctic shipping lanes like the Northern Sea Route, the Oryong 501 incident reveals the lengths to which the country will go to catch Arctic seafood. The factory trawler left the port of Busan, South Korea – a potential future hub for Arctic destinational shipping – to sail to the Bering Sea in search of pollock, a type of cod used in fish sticks in North America and Europe. The white, flaky fish is also popular in Korea, where, when frozen, it is used in recipes such as pollock pancakes (dongtaejeon). Dried pollock is used in bukeoguk, a soup commonly eaten in winter. The reuse of frozen and dried pollock recalls time-tested recipes from places like Ireland, Iceland, and Maine, where frozen and dried cod has been consumed in soups, stews, and as a protein-rich snack for centuries. These similarities suggest some sort of convergent culinary evolution in the North Pacific and North Atlantic.

South Korea receives an annual quota from Russia to fish in its extended economic zone. Earlier this year, Yonhap reported that after three days of negotiations in Seoul, Russia granted the Asian nation a quota of 49,615 tons of fish, including 30,000 tons of pollock. South Korea also received the right to fish an extra 10,000 tons of pollock if it managed to stop illegally caught Russian king crabs, a prized (and controversial) species, from making their way across the country’s borders. The right to additional fishing quotas was therefore tied to Seoul’s anti-crab-smuggling efforts. While well-intended, however, the measure, which provides increased fishing rights as a reward, could further decimate the already declining pollock stocks in the North Pacific Ocean.

Factory trawlers

chicagotribuneFactory trawlers such as Oryong 501 contribute to the depletion of fish stocks worldwide. After dragging enormous nets through the water that barely discern between fish species, these vessels freeze their desired catch onboard (throwing the wasted bycatch overseas), which eliminates the need to rush to the market. These types of ships – literally floating factories – can stay at sea indefinitely and continually reap huge bounties, sometimes hundreds of tons per day. F/V Alaska Ocean, the largest factory trawler in the U.S., can process 600 metric tons of pollock per day. Contrast that with the clipping from The Chicago Tribune in 1966. Reuters reported that a Japanese fishing boat caught 80 tons of salmon in the Arctic over a period of two months. Now, a factory trawler can catch that same amount in a few hours.

Factory trawlers represent the culmination of centuries of innovations in fishing, as detailed in Mark Kurlansky’s seminal book, Cod. For a while, these advances resulted in bigger and bigger catches. The 1950s, for instance, are often referred to as the “golden years” of cod fishing in the North Atlantic. After World War II, factory trawlers began fishing the North Atlantic. The going was good for a few years until the intake of fish became so big that it sent the population, unable to reproduce, into collapse. In Distant Water, William Warner solemnly writes that factory trawlers “fished too well for their own future.” Canada banned cod fishing in 1992, dealing a huge blow to communities in places like Newfoundland that were literally built on the industry. Cod stocks in the North Atlantic have since been extremely slow to recover, but factory trawlers continue their frighteningly efficient work in the North Pacific.

The International Bering Sea Forum (IBSF) notes, “Native ways of life have been devastated by ecological and climatic changes around the Bering.” When factory trawlers are busy emptying the Bering Sea, indigenous peoples are finding fewer opportunities to feed themselves. Alaska Native communities along the Bering Sea, for instance, have traditionally relied on salmon rather than pollock, yet they are still unwittingly affected by pollock fishing. Salmon can get caught in the big, undiscerning nets used by trawlers to catch pollock. Without proper licenses or quotas to catch salmon, trawlers instead throw the cold, dead bodies of hundreds of thousands of the pink fish, both juveniles and adults, back into the water as bycatch every year [1]. IBSF continues, “The profits from Bering Sea fish go largely to huge fishing companies, which have left many fishing communities destitute.” It also has repercussions for the families of the Filipino and Indonesian fishermen who were paid low wages to begin with and have now paid with their lives.

Russia’s Kamchatka Border Guard Directorate, South Korea’s Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries, and the U.S. Coast Guard are all involved in the search and rescue mission to find the fishermen lost at sea during the sinking of their vessel. This shows the possibility of cooperation in the North Pacific during a time of emergency. Yet the region’s fisheries are also in a state of emergency. While organizations like the North Pacific Anadromous Fish Commission are already in place to help manage fish stocks on the high seas, more could be done to combat overfishing, illegal fishing, and unsafe working conditions on fishing vessels in both territorial waters and on the high seas. The Russians, Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans all allegedly carry out some of these illicit practices.

The tragic loss of 27 and counting lives in the Bering Sea underscores the dangers associated with the commercial fishing industry, especially in Arctic waters. Factory trawlers rampaging these unforgiving seas in harrowing conditions risk needlessly sending fishermen – often labor seen as “disposable” if coming from places like Indonesia and the Philippines – and fish stocks once considered to be “inexhaustible” – to their watery graves. The greater tragedy unfolding in the North Pacific is the failure of the littoral societies to realize the wastefulness with which they treat both human labor and fish stocks.

Sources

[1] Association of Village Council Presidents. (2013). Reduction of Chinook and Chum Salmon Bycatch in the Bering Sea Pollock Fishery.

Elections in Greenland and Alaska Bolster Arctic Natural Resource Extraction

Greenland at a crossroads. Photo: Mia Bennett.

Greenland at a crossroads. Photo: Mia Bennett.

Voters in Greenland and Alaska went to the polls last November, electing politicians from parties in favor of natural resource extraction in both places. The elections in each Arctic polity were tightly contested, producing mind-bogglingly close results. In Greenland, the incumbent Siumut party, a big promoter of mining, captured a narrow victory with just 326 more votes than the defeated opposition party, Inuit Ataqatigiit (IA). Across the Arctic Ocean in Alaska, the race was so close that incumbent Senator Mark Begich (D), who was up for reelection for a second term, did not concede defeat to Republican challenger Dan Sullivan until nearly two weeks after election day. He ended up losing by just a hair over 6,000 votes. The close results show that people in Greenland and Alaska – two areas often deemed to be the next resource frontier within the Arctic – have elected politicians in favor of resource extraction in the Arctic, but their victories are hardly resounding.

Greenland’s pro-mining party ekes out a narrow victory

In Greenland’s national elections on November 28, the incumbent Siumut party pulled off a narrow but important victory. Despite being tarnished by the scandal currently embroiling former prime minister and Siumut leader Aleqa Hammond over the misuse of public funds, new party leader Kim Kielsen led the party to win a plurality of votes. Kielsen, a former police officer who previously served as the Minister for Nature and the Environment, managed to distance himself from Hammond and repair the party’s image, a story that The Arctic Journal covers in more detail in its profile of Greenland’s new leader. Siumut received 34.3% of votes compared to opposition party IA, which won just 326 fewer votes to take 33.2%. In Greenland, every vote really does count. Although both Siumut and IA will now hold the same number of seats in Inatsisartut (Greenland’s parliament), since Siumut won those 326 more votes, they will likely get to form the parliamentary coalition. A couple of potential coalition scenarios are considered by Polaris Analytics, a polar political risk consultancy, in its election briefing, while official election results are available from Qinersineq. Siumut, however, won 8.6% votes fewer than it did in the previous election in March 2013, meaning it still needs to work to win back the favor of Greenlandic voters. 

The election results should prove heartening to foreign investors like the companies from Australia, China, and South Korea investing in mining projects. Mikå Mered, CEO of Polarisk Analytics, explained in the company’s election briefing: “Overall, the outcome of this election is very good news for investors, especially in the mining and infrastructure sectors.” Siumut may still have to hold a referendum on uranium mining in order to satisfy potential coalition partners, however, so investors may elect to keep some of the cards in their decks until the people of Greenland have spoken.

Issues like education and jobs were also important during the snap election season in Greenland. Voters in Nuuk elected Ineqi Kielsen, a Siumut member, who will now be the youngest member of parliament at just 21 years old. In an interview with Greenlandic newspaper Sermitsiaq, he touched on the importance of both the artisanal craft industry and education. He argued, “It is important to have an education.There is high unemployment among Greenlanders between 17 and 24 years old They must and will be able to move on. I will seriously work for training opportunities for them.” One issue he underscored is that the lack of Danish language skills should not prevent one from holding a job, especially in the craft industry. This effective distancing from Denmark reflects the long-term goal of obtaining sovereignty for Greenland, which Siumut and IA share.

If Ineqi’s surname rings a bell, that’s because his father is a cousin of Kim Kielsen’s father. In Greenland, the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree – just like in Alaska, where Senator Lisa Murkowksi’s father was senator before her and where outgoing Senator Mark Begich’s father was a congressman.

Alaska and the U.S. send oil boosters to the Senate

A few weeks before Greenlanders filled in their ballots, Americans across the country went to the polls for the final midterm elections to be held under President Barack Obama. They cast enough votes in the Republicans’ favor to send them to control the Senate. In Alaska, two men fought a tough race for the Senate: incumbent Mark Begich (D) and challenger Dan Sullivan (R), former Alaska state attorney general and natural resources commissioner. Begich only conceded on November 17 after the final results showed him taking only 45.83% of votes compared to Sullivan’s 47.96% tally. This difference, representing just 6,014 votes, was still bigger than the difference between Siumut and IA’s votes in Greenland, revealing just how very close the race on the world’s largest non-continental island was.

The League of Conservation Voters ranks Begich as voting in favor of the environment 77% of the time, though he generally also supported oil and gas development like most Alaskans and Alaskan politicians. As senator, Sullivan will likely be an even more vocal advocate for the oil and gas industry. Earlier this year, he announced, “My campaign will focus on accelerating the Alaska energy and economic renaissance–to create more opportunity, energy security, and jobs for Alaskans.” Where Sullivan will more likely set himself apart from Begich is in his critical view of the federal government and its responses to climate change. When asked by Sitka, Alaska radio station KCAW about these topics, he responded:

“I think the federal response to climate change should not be what the Obama administration is doing, which is trying to kill energy and low-cost energy, and particularly coal.”

With the Republicans taking control the Senate, they will now get to determine the leadership of all of its committees and subcommittees. Murkowski will likely chair the Committee on Natural Resources, of which she is currently the ranking member. Her “Energy 20/20: A Blueprint for America’s Future” plan (PDF), released in February 2013, calls for on page 16: “Open 2,000 acres in the non‐wilderness portion of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) coastal plain (1002 area) to exploration and production.” The 1002 area is the 1.5 million acres of land within ANWR, which stretches over 19 million acres, that could theoretically be opened to development. A push for ANWR drilling could happen again under her chairmanship. In this same document, Murkowski prevaricates on the origins of climate change, contending, “The complexity of this problem is underscored by the fact that we haven’t even reached a consensus on what has already happened, which greatly complicates attempts to predict the likely impacts of climate change.” This equivocation comes even though NASA (a government-funded agency, lest we forget) states that 97% of scientists agree on the anthropogenic causes of climate change.

A herd of caribou in Prudhoe Bay. Photo: Nick Bonzey/Flickr

A herd of caribou in Prudhoe Bay. Photo: Nick Bonzey/Flickr

Potentially further damaging for the U.S. in its attempt to adapt to, let alone tackle, climate change is the probable elevation of Senator Jim Inhofe (R-Oklahoma), the current ranking member for the Committee on the Environment and Public Works, to the chairmanship. As has been reported widely throughout the media, Inhofe has called global warming “the greatest hoax perpetrated on the American people” and compared the Environmental Protection Agency, a U.S. federal body tasked with protecting human health and the environment, to the Gestapo. He has even written a book entitled, The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future. The irony is that if Inhofe has his way, his mere belief that climate change is a conspiracy threaten the nation’s future by resulting in a failure to create robust policies that allow us to begin adapting now rather than delaying further action.

The League of Conservation Voters gives Inhofe an almost unbelievable score of 5% for votes in favor of the environment. This is an absolute travesty for someone who will likely lead the Senate environment committee for the second time. He previously chaired the committee when the Republicans held a majority during former president George W. Bush’s first term, from 2003-2007 – a time when drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) was openly on the table along with the “Clear Skies Act,” perhaps an attempt at black humor in naming a piece of legislation that would have actually allowed more pollution to be dumped into the skies. The Natural Resources Defence Council, a conservation organization that puts the environment back into “natural resources,” produced a scathing report in 2005 criticizing the Bush administration’s sorry record on the environment, including its support for opening numerous public lands to oil and gas exploration.

Drilling in ANWR may again become open to debate when the Republicans take over the Senate in January, although there probably still will not be enough votes to make it happen. Inhofe states on his own website, “We must open domestic sources of energy production in our Outer Continental Shelf, Alaska, and on federal lands, and I know it is possible to do this in an environmentally friendly way.” Like Alaska’s incoming senator Dan Sullivan, he is also a champion of increasing coal production even as countries like China with more long-term energy plans move away from it. Perhaps he’ll find a friend in Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott, who received a cold reception at the G-20 summit in Brisbane after announcing that he was “standing up for coal.”

President Obama is opposed to drilling in ANWR. He once remarked in an interview with the League of Conservation Voters, “I strongly reject drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge because it would irreversibly damage a protected national wildlife refuge without creating sufficient oil supplies to meaningfully affect the global market price or have a discernible impact on U.S. energy security.” That’s a long way from the views of George W. Bush, whose thoughts on drilling in ANWR are captured by this CNN article from 2005. With Inhofe back in the driver’s seat of the environment committee and two Republican senators at the helm in Alaska, they may be coming back.

There’s a will, but no economic way

Greenland and Alaska have both elected leaders who promote natural resource extraction, so policies more favorable to such development could be enacted. Yet right now, trends in global commodity cycles could halt desire to drill for oil, at least in the short term. That’s a big difference from when Bush was considering drilling in ANWR earlier this century, when the price of oil had risen from $25 to $60 between 2003 and 2005. In contrast, on the very day of the Greenland elections last Friday, the price of WTI crude oil dropped 10 percent in one day to reach a low of $65/barrel. This plunge threatens the economic feasibility of drilling on new frontiers across the Arctic, especially offshore, where the break-even price hangs around $90/barrel. But companies like Shell, ExxonMobil, and Rosneft will likely only be hanging up their hats in the short term. Over email, Polarisk CEO Mikå Mered told Cryopolitics: “On the short/medium run (1-5 years) we don’t see low oil prices being a deterrent in Alaska and in the Russian Arctic. On the long run (5+ years), given that most energy outlooks place oil spot prices between $105 and $125 a barrel, and given that the global demand for primary energy (especially in Asia) will boom, we believe that Russian Arctic projects will be profitable.”

Furthermore, cheap oil may actually lower the price of conducting other industrial activities like mining. With cheaper oil, steel becomes less expensive, as do the costs of things like field equipment and transportation. On these factors alone, the economics of mining in Greenland may become slightly more favorable while drilling for oil offshore in places like Alaska becomes less favorable. So while the rare earth minerals and uranium in Greenland may be a bit closer to coming out of the ground, despite the Republican takeover in America, the oil in ANWR and offshore Alaska might have to stay in the ground for some while longer.

Next up: Canada

The Shell Albian oil sands in Alberta, Canada. This was one all boreal forest. Photo: Mia Bennett

The Shell Albian oil sands in Alberta, Canada. This was once all boreal forest. Photo: Mia Bennett

Canada will be the next Arctic state to hold elections. Sometime in 2015, Canadians from Tuktoyaktuk to Halifax will probably go to the polls, potentially on October 19*. There are rumors that Prime Minister Stephen Harper actually moved up the next Arctic Council ministerial meeting from its traditional May date to April for electoral reasons. The thinking is that Harper may be able to leverage positive outcomes from the meeting, which will take place in Iqaluit, in the national election – even as Emma Jarratt and James Thomson at the Barents Observer find that his administration has lagged in following through on promises made to the Canadian Arctic despite forking out the big bucks.

As chair of the Arctic Council since 2013, Canada has promoted an agenda of “development for the people of the North.” Canada also pushed through the creation of the Arctic Economic Council. Although development is nominally “sustainable,” as I have written before, a look through the names of the people who attended the inaugural meeting of the Arctic Economic Council shows the dominance of representatives from the non-renewable natural resources extraction sector. Canada’s insular discourse recalls speeches made by politicians in Greenland and Alaska who also want to make sure they get to keep their fair share of the profits from resource development even as these projects are increasingly funded by corporations based in Beijing, Seoul, and Sydney.

Where Canada differs from Alaska and Greenland is that it has many home-grown firms operating in the minerals sector. The Economist notes that half of the world’s publicly listed exploration and mining companies are based in Canada. In that same article, it observed, “Few governments have aligned their interests so closely to those of their country’s energy and mining firms as Canada’s Conservative administration.” If Harper is reelected for a fourth term as prime minister, expect even more support for Canadian oil, gas, and mining firms.

The administration’s long-held hope of constructing the Keystone XL, which would transport oil sands products from Alberta all the way to the Gulf of Mexico, could also potentially benefit from the Republican victory in the U.S. The cross-border pipeline is more likely to receive government approval now for two reasons. First, the election season is over, so lame duck representatives can vote on the controversial issue without fear of repercussions from voters. Second, the Republicans, who largely support the pipeline’s construction, will hold a majority of seats in the Senate starting next year, demonstrating the international effects on extractive infrastructure of domestic elections. If Keystone XL is approved, however, the proposed pipeline from the oil sands in Alberta through the Northwest Territories to the Arctic will become a less attractive idea despite growing excitement in the Canadian North over it. Perhaps that’s the silver lining for Arctic environmentalists dismayed with the pro-resource extraction election results across the Arctic.

*An earlier version of this post suggested that elections could take place in May 2015. That is actually probably unlikely.

Greenland Parliamentary Elections: What You Need to Know about Ice Friday

The future of Greenland will be shaped on Friday. Photo: © Mia Bennett.

The future of Greenland will be shaped on Friday. Photo: © Mia Bennett.

On November 28, Greenlanders will go to the polls to vote in a general election for the second time in less than two years. In early October, the snap election was called after the former prime minister, Aleqa Hammond, resigned due to a scandal involving misspending of approximately $18,000 worth of public funds. She is accused of misusing these funds to pay for plane tickets for her and her family, hotel rooms, and minibar charges.

It’s a long fall from grace for the woman who was Greenland’s first female prime minister. In March 2013, Hammond led the opposition party to win 14 of the 31 seats in Inatsisartut, Greenland’s parliament. Hammond’s party ousted the incumbent Inuit Ataqatigiit party and the prime minister at the time, Kuupik Kleist. Two seats short of a majority, Siumut formed a coalition with Solidarity and the Inuit Party (which didn’t stay for long in the coalition).

Siumut had run heavily on a campaign promoting independence from Denmark and the lifting of a ban on uranium mining – two promises that the country’s relatively new slogan, “Pioneering Greenland” (see, for instance, this promotional video), encapsulates. While independence may have now receded even farther into the distance given the political upheaval, in October 2013, Siumut did follow through with its promise to overturn the longstanding ban. This was a crucial step for moving forward with developing rare earth minerals, since most of the deposits are tied up with uranium.

With uranium mining allowed, some corporate interest and a great deal more media hype trumpeted Greenland as the next mining frontier. The Wall Street Journal announced, “Greenland Opens Door to Mining,” while Foreign Affairs published a splashy story called “Greenland’s Rare Earths Gold Rush.” The stories were more than hot air. The Kvanefjeld project in southern Greenland holds vast reserves of rare earth oxides, and Australian-based Greenland Minerals and Energy Limited (GME) has already invested $75 million into the project over the past six years (source). Under certain conditions, Greenland could become an important alternative supplier of rare earth minerals, undermining China’s 90% dominance of the trade. The Arctic island is also home to significant deposits of gold, ruby, and iron.

Hammond’s heavy promotion of Greenland as a source of minerals for the rest of the world, however, brought a great deal of disapproval onto her government. Critics accused her of not involving the people enough in a decision that directly affects the future of their environment. Clearly, many in Greenland were upset with Hammond and Siumut’s policies: Two of the biggest protests ever in Nuuk were in the lead-up to the parliamentary vote on the uranium mining ban and in the wake of Hammond’s alleged abuse of public funds.

Some dissenters believe that Greenland would be entering into a Faustian bargain if it were to develop its natural resources in order to become economically self-sufficient and independent from Denmark. To replace the DKK 3.2 billion bloc grant that comes from Copenhagen every year, Greenland would have to develop a significant amount of its resources at high commodity prices – a gamble that the experience of countries dependent on primary product exports, like Russia, show is a risky bet. The country might become independent from Denmark, but it would become dependent on the fluctuations of global commodity cycles. Others in Greenland would like to see their country fully become part of the globalized world and think that the bet is worth taking.

Opposition party leads the polls

Right now, the opposition party, Inuit Ataqatigiit (IA), is expected to win the most votes, although it’s hard to predict whether it will be able to take home the 16 seats needed to obtain a parliamentary majority. Using polling data taken in September, the London School of Economics media blog predicts that IA will take home 13 seats and Siumut 12. Nunatsiaq Online posits that IA could win 14 to 16 seats. If IA wins, leader Sara Olsvig has promised to put the uranium mining ban question to the people in a referendum, although she has made it no secret that her party is opposed in principle to uranium mining. In fact, the gap between IA and Siumut may be closing now after Olsvig’s comments in an interview with Danish news site politiken.dk were interpreted to mean that she would not respect the referendum if the people voted to allow uranium mining – words she is now trying to take back (article in Danish).

Who will watch and who to watch

Elections in Greenland will be watched from afar by a wide range of people. There’s the politicians in Copenhagen, for one, and mining companies and investors as far away as Australia. GME (ASX: GGG)’s stock price closely reflects outcomes of elections and policy decisions in Greenland. Its value has tumbled by half since the revelations in Nuuk regarding Hammond in September 2014, and even more dramatically when compared to the highs of Siumut’s victory in March 2013. Then, GGG was worth 40 cents a share. Now, it’s worth 7 cents a share.

GGGstockprice
Last but not least, there’s even a Greenlandic expat community in Israel that will possibly tune into the results over falafels instead of musk ox.  The Danish Embassy in Tel Aviv was accepting postal votes from eligible voters through November 19 (bonus points to those who mailed their ballots with the special Israel-Greenland Joint Issue postage stamps). So as millions of Americans recover from their Thanksgiving meals and stand in line at four in the morning for items like iPhones and televisions, items, thousands of Greenlanders will be making their way to vote on the future of the world’s largest island, which could one day supply those rare earth metals needed to make Black Friday’s consumer goods. Somehow, the single polling station in Nuuk will manage.

israelgreenland
For updates on the elections in Greenland, check out the following resources (more updates forthcoming):

News

  • Sermitsiaq, one of Greenland’s two national newspapers. In Danish and Greenlandic.
  • Nunatsiaq Online: English-languages updates from a newspaper based in Nunavut and Nunavik, Canada.
  • Politiken – a leading Danish newspaper, which will be covering the elections
  • Polarisk Group’s briefing on the Greenland parliamentary elections

Twitter

  • @saraolsvig – Leader of IA
  • @madsnyvold – Journalist for Sermitsiaq based in Nuuk.
  • Hashtags: #glpol #qin14 #glvalg14