Ethnic policy of Russia in the Arctic: basic approaches and principles

Arctic zone of the Russian Federation (Russian Arctic) covers the territories of different ethnic and religious composition, economic specialization and regional forms of political power. A huge sparsely populated territory, harsh climate and location at the crossroads of different cultures determined the complexity of ethno-social processes in the Arctic. The colonization of the northern lands is the essence of migration processes in historical perspective. Great Russian historian V.O. Klyuchevsky considered colonization a fundamental process of the Russian history: "The history of Russia is the history of a country that has been colonizing itself. The area of colonization was expanding together with its state territory” [1, p. 50]. An important feature of the Russian colonization is its focus on the development of unpopulated or economically undeveloped areas. One should distinguish between the terms “colonization” and “colonialism”. The qualitative difference of the definitions was indicated by Professor L.L. Rybakovsky [2, p. 128]. According to him, the policy of colonization pursued by Russia excluded such phenomena as the slavery and the destruction of the native population, typical for Spain, Portugal, Great Britain and other countries, resulted in enslavement and plunder of the peoples of the New World and the transformation the territories they live in colonies of the developed countries. The term “colonization”, in our view, more accurately reveals the essence of the process of resettlement, focusing on targeted influence, on the state processes in the Russian context. Russia, being the foundation of the Eurasian world, historically developed as a system that combines multiple ethnic groups and thus gives them a new quality of the future. And the prospects for the existence and development have been opened not only for the ordinary people, but also for the elite of the ethnic groups, which were included in Russian elite. A great number the small ethnic groups members enjoyed the upward social mobility within the Russian state.

Thus, the mixed and dispersed resettlement of peoples, economic structures and differences in value systems, a large state role in the colonization of the northern lands were historical factors of regionalization of the Arctic area of Russia. Despite the existing different ethnic and religious groups, the Russian Arctic should be considered as a single macro-region, as part of Russia, due to the absolute predominance of Russians there, as well as the predominance of all-Russian identity over ethnic and regional ones among the majority of the Northerners in the Russian Federation.

Nation and ethnic groups in the Russian Arctic

Developing an effective state ethnic policy is becoming increasingly important due to the issue of the development of the Arctic. Its relevance is due to complex reasons: increased attention of the government that has accepted the strategic documents on the development of the Russian Arctic, the growing global competition for resources, an important geo-economic and geopolitical importance of the region. Of particular note is the need for the formation of regional models of ethnic policy, which experts say [3, 2013]. The complexity of the regional models of ethno-national policy of Russia is, on the one hand, related to the need to incorporate the features of ethno-social processes taking place in the regions of different socio-economic development, various inter-ethnic relations, the dynamics of migration processes and, on the other hand, it is related to the fact that it is mandatory to have unified approaches of public policy in this area.

Before proceeding to the analysis of value characteristics of national ethnic policy, it is necessary to define the meaning of terms “ethnicity” and “nation”. A certain lack of consensus among foreign and Russian scientists on this issue, its complexity and politicization occur. According to J.M. Bromley, ethnicity is “... historically rooted in the territory stable intergenerational group of people who not only have similarities, but also have relatively stable features of culture (including language) and psyche, as well as awareness of their unity and difference from all other similar entities (selfawareness ), fixed in the self-name (ethnonym)” [4, p. 58]. So, ethnicity acts as a socio-cultural community. In contrast to the ethnic group, nation is a political and supra-ethnic; it includes different ethnic groups. British anthropologist from the London School of Economics E. Smith defines nation as a political and cultural community that is aware of its autonomy, unity and self-interest: “... a nation we can call the population with its historical territory, common myths and historical memories, mass and popular culture, common economy and common legal rights and obligations for its members” [5, p. 57]. Note that E. Smith emphasizes the political nature of the nation, taking as criteria “legal rights and obligations”. In modern societies, only the state has the sovereign right to adopt Constitution and laws, and to establish the rights and obligations of citizens on their territory. Concept of nation presented by E. Smith is a classic one, as it is between two extreme points of view on the origin of nations: instrumentalist and constructivist theories — on one side and ideas about nation as an imaginary phenomenon (B. Anderson [6, 1983], E. Gellner, E. Hobsbawm, L.M. Drobizheva [7], V.A. Tishkov [8]), or primordialist concept that considers the nation a biosocial phenomenon (P. van den Berg, C. Geertz, D. Armstrong) — on the other side.

Thus, saying “nation” we mean the entire population of Russia, falling under the above criteria — long-term residents of the territory, sharing common myths, traditions, common historical memory with legal rights and duties. Among the objectives of the national policy of Russia listed in the Strategy of the state national policy of the Russian Federation for the period up to 2025 (approved by Presidential Decree on the 19th of December 2012, N 1666) the first place is occupied by the issues of consolidation and nationwide civic consciousness, spiritual unity of the multinational people of the Russian Federation (Russian nation).

A special place among the population of the Russian Arctic is occupied by indigenous peoples of the North. This is an important point in the context of this article, as the theme of ethnonational policy of Russia in the Arctic includes public policy for the entire population of the Russian Arctic. At the same time, indigenous peoples of the North serve as a special object of public policy.

The Russian Arctic represents an area with low population density and its level of urbanization is one of the highest in the country — about 80% [9, p. 38]. A significant part of the urban population lives in large industrial centers — Arkhangelsk, Severodvinsk, Murmansk (over 100,000 people) and in the 30 towns with a population of over 5000 people. The rest of the population lives in predominantly gated communities, which have a “detachment” from the “mainland”. We discuss the existence of geographic, climatic and economic specific of Northern communities that should be taken into account in the formation of a national policy towards ethnic groups of the Russian Arctic.

Management approach to the development of the Russian Arctic

The collapse of the Soviet Union caused the degradation of economic, transport and social infrastructure, significant migration outflow of the population of the northern territories, the destruction of the health system, especially in rural areas, the outflow of specialists. In the postSoviet era, northern regions had a negative migration balance. The main reason for the outflow of people from the northern regions was the changing role of government in the economy, reduction of large-scale development projects in the North, Siberia and the Far East. In 1990 - 2011 the population of the North of Russia decreased from 9807 thousand people to 7967 thousand people. The total loss of population was 1 million 840 000 people [10, p. 71]. The negative balance is still relevant for the North of Russia.

Russian state policy in the Arctic had changed after 2007. In recent years there have been several important documents: in 2013 - the Development Strategy for the Arctic zone of the Russian Federation and the national security for the period up to 2020; in 2014 — the state program “Socio-economic development of the Arctic zone of the Russian Federation for the period till 2020” and a Decree of the President on the establishment of the Commission on the development of the Arctic.

The author believes that modern Russia has developed two opposing management approach to the state policy on development of the territories of the Far North. Conditionally denote them as the economic and technocratic, political and humanitarian.

The ideological basis of economic and technocratic approach is the liberal values professed by the representatives of the economic bloc of the government: competition, equality of opportunities, modern versions of the laissez-faire principle. This approach takes into account the specifics of the minimum economic development of the northern territories. Along with the economic and technocratic approach “rotational” method has become popular. “Rotational” method is now seen in the activity of public and private oil and gas companies. Its supporters appeal to the need to re- duce costs, to maintain infrastructure in the harsh climatic conditions, to use the cost optimization and other cost-reasoned opinions, designed to increase the efficiency of the use of state and companies’ funds. This approach uses the concepts of “Arctic” and “North” as opposite and it seems to be typical for legal and political activities of the past decade. The idea is that “Arctic” means areas that have access to the Arctic Ocean. “North” has wider meaning of areas with severe climate [11, p. 155-191]. It would seem that such a differentiation is made due geographical and logical reasons. However, the opposition of these terms is an absolute priority of Arctic projects related to the development of the Northern Sea Route and limitations for gaining the state funding for northern territories that are not part of the Russian Arctic 2.

Thus, the Arctic and the North are not allocated as a strategic object of public policy. Securing the tendency to increase the role of the Arctic but not North in the Russian legislation is negatively perceived by the expert community. Authorities of some of the northern regions are coming out with proposals to expand the Arctic zone. A similar opinion is shared by the experts. According to Professor Y. Lukin, if the subject of the Russian Federation or a part of its territory goes to the Arctic coastline, the whole territory of subject should be included in the Arctic zone [12, p. 170]. In October 2014 the media reported, citing the head of the Russian Ministry of Labor M. Topilin, about the possible removal of regional coefficients used in wages in the Far North and equivalent areas. The Ministry of Labour disavowed this message later [11, 2014]. It got a backlash in public opinion.

The second, the political and humanitarian approach, is behind the need for integrated development of the North, the creation of comfortable living conditions for the population. We are talking about an expanded interpretation of the Russian Arctic, including most of the northern areas, and the need for a purposeful state policy in the Arctic and the North, in particular, the development of the legal framework, consisting of a special law on the Arctic. An important task of the state policy is the reindustrialization of the Russian Arctic through the establishment of so-called “areas of priority development”. Reindustrialization of the economy of the Russian Arctic should become a basis for the development of social infrastructure, medicine, education and the labor market of North. Similar deliberate policy that takes into account the specifics of the territories should be developed in relation to Siberia and the Far East. In our opinion, the solution of demographic problems, securing the population, especially the labor force on the territories of the Far North is an important task of the state, especially relevant in today's geopolitical situation. Depopulation of the northern territories, of course, does not threaten the state sovereignty. Howev- er, this might raise serious problems of geo-economic and geopolitical nature. Indigenous people, in addition to adaptation to climatic conditions, have a sense of Motherland (Homeland), the perception of territory as “their”, which involves a wide range of socio-humanitarian characteristics: respect for the Arctic environment (small Homeland) and awareness of the unity of their destiny with great Motherland — Russia. Desertification of the Russian Arctic will mean dismantling the centuries of civilization efforts of the Russian people for the colonization of the North.

Experts noted the absence of a common mandatory approach to the legal regulation of relations in the Russian Arctic, reflecting the specificity of this macro-region. According to the director of the Center North and the Arctic economy professor A. Pilyasov, the federal law on the Arctic zone should be a focus on security issues in their extended treatment, including both national security issues and the security problems of human life, environmental safety and security of local communities [13, p. 27]. This point of view is justified in terms of regulation of interethnic relations in the Arctic.

The Russian ethno-national policy should take into account regional specifics of interethnic relations: the replacement of old residents as a result of migratory exchange, the inflow of people non-adapted to the northern conditions and not aimed at long-term residence, entails the risk of ethnic tensions. On the one hand, uncontrolled migration, lobbied by unscrupulous employers, is negatively affecting international relations. Government efforts for social adaptation of migrant workers do not solve problems such as the ongoing drug trafficking from Central Asian states, the high crime rate among immigrants, especially illegal immigrants, conflicts between migrant workers, the expansion of the shadow economy. Especially significant are these impacts in terms of socio-economic crisis.

On the other hand, the migration setups of residents have a decisive influence of comfort and security in the region. According to the results of sociological research made in 2008-2010 in Komi (RK) by the Ministry of National Policy of the RK: the main reasons for departure from the North are: “the desire to change a place of residence” — 29.3%; “The municipality, which is inhabited and there is no future, because it does not develop any production there” — 25.0%; “There is no possibility to provide my family with financial support’ — 14.9% [14, p. 113]. The survey respondents indicated what is causing ethnic conflicts. For three years, the respondents usually named: 1) the “bad manners, lack of culture, stupidity, lack of restraint of people, the result of misunderstanding” (48.9%); 2) “too many immigrants, their defiance behavior, oppression of i n-digenous people” (42.5%); 3) “poverty, disorder in life, a large gap between rich and poor, the envy for those who are richer” (33.2% in 2010) [14, p. 118].

Thus, the outflow of old residents and its replacement by temporary migrants and the loss of the population of the Far North and the nation-state identity are the key processes for understanding the situation.

Expansion of radical Islamists seems to be a greater threat to the security of Russia's population. Experts point to an existence of Islamic fundamentalists in the non-Muslim regions of Russia, who are using various forms of recruitment of supporters, especially among the youth. If the efforts of the authorities won’t be able to break down the radical Islamists, the issues of radical Islam are a matter of time in the regions of the Russian Arctic.

The author considers ethno-national policy of Russia in the Arctic and its sustainable development to be provided through the following issues: the first is to create conditions for the preservation and development of peoples, traditionally living in the region, promote their cultural diversity and improvement of living standards. Achievement of the ethno-political stability, interethnic, inter-religious tolerance are possible in case of effective interaction between public authorities, local governments and non-governmental organizations, and, most importantly, in case of economic growth.

The second issue here is the integration of internal and external migrant workers who moved from the regions and countries with different ethnic and cultural, religious or linguistic background.

Both national and Russian migration policy should be based on the principle of civilizational unity. Under the “civilizational unity”, we understand the level of consciousness shared cultural values, norms, rules of social life, defining behavioral patterns inherent in individuals as representatives of large and small groups with long-term historical ties and experience sharing. An important feature of the internal unity of civilization is the availability of self-identification of the individual with country of residence, identification of their future and their children's future with the future of the country, they perceived as the Motherland. Important external sign of the civilizational unity is the individual language, laws, traditions, history and culture of the country of residence, willingness to serve in its armed forces. The secondary role is played by such factors as ethnicity, presence of relatives in the country of residence or amount of years of residence. It should be noted that belonging to ethnic groups, historically associated with the country of residence is an important prerequisite of the civilizational unity. In this sense, it is justified and necessary to give preferences for Russian compatriots — Russians and representatives of indigenous peoples of Russia, who have no statehood abroad. At the same time, emphasizing ethnicity as a dominant factor of the civilizational unity is counterproductive because it entails a threat of na- tionalism and separatism. Natural and climatic conditions largely determined the unifying tendency in Russia.

Attracting of manpower is a significant part of the state migration policy in the Russian Arctic. The effectiveness of migration policy should be determined by its effect on ethnic and religious tension.

Thus, the implementation of economic and technocratic approach in Russian state Arctic policy, in our view, can achieve temporary effects, but in a long term perspective it creates significant risks and threats of a geopolitical nature. Sustainable development of the Russian Arctic is only possible to be provided when the interests of their population will be included in the program-policy documents and their implementation in the Russian Arctic.

The indigenous peoples of the North as a subject of the state ethno-national policy of Russia

An important task of the state ethnic policy in the Arctic is to develop and implement a system of measures to support the indigenous peoples, their traditional lifestyles and economy. Particular attention, both at the federal and regional level, should be paid to solving the problems of indigenous peoples of the North (the phrase “small peoples of the North” is a common Russian expression that means indigenous peoples of the North, Siberia and the Russian Far East).

The state policy on the development of the territories of the Far North, Siberia and the Far East during the Soviet period, with its positive achievements had a negative impact. Economic growth in 1930s-1950s led to a forcible transfer to a sedentary life and damaged traditional lifestyle of indigenous population. According to experts, school education for indigenous youth consisted of the mechanism of their disadaptation to the environment, reflected in the growth of alcoholism, crime, endangering the traditional economy. It should be noted that these tendencies were combines with the growth of the environmental problems caused by the expansion of industry in the North.

At the end of the twentieth century, the rise of ethnic consciousness in the Soviet Union (Russia) contributed to the establishment of the Associations of Indigenous Peoples. The most famous of them is the Russian Association of Indigenous Peoples of the North (RAIPON), established in 1990. The Association brought together representatives of 26 ethnic groups and by now their number has increased to 41. Not all of the ethnic groups residing on the territory of the Russian Arctic could be called indigenous.

International terms regarding the indigenous people are: aboriginal, autochthonous, indigenous populations [15, p. 24]. Indigenous Peoples are featured as people with the historical connections (continuity) to the territory of their present residence, compact areas of settlement; self- identification; own language, culture, traditions and other social, economic and political institutions; the desire to preserve their land and ethnic identity [15, p. 47—48]. It should be noted that the definition of ethnicity and the statistical account of the indigenous groups are very different from country to country.

In Russia the share of indigenous ethnic groups with respect to the total population residing in the Arctic region is insignificant. According to the calculations of Professor F.H. Sokolova, the total number of indigenous peoples in the Arctic regions at the beginning of the 21st century was 8.0—8.5% of the population. In Alaska, the proportion of indigenous people is 14.9%, in Arctic Canada — 50.8%, in the Taimyr District of Krasnoyarsk Territory — 24.8%, in the Nenets and Chukotka Autonomous Districts of the Russian Arctic — 18.7% and 31.3%, respectively [16]. This quality distinguishes the situation of the indigenous peoples of the same in the United States, Denmark and especially in Canada. No coincidence that the United States and Canada in 1960s— 1970s secured special rights of autochthonous ethnic groups on Arctic lands.

In the second half of the 20th century the growth of ethnic identity of indigenous peoples made them politically active. In case of the northern peoples a land rights issue emerged. Industrial development of the northern territories of the United States and Canada threatened the traditional Inuit way of life. In the first half of the 20th century, the Inuit organization, Aleuts and Indians defended the US right to use communal lands through petition. By the mid-20thcentury, there was a unification of organizations into regional associations, initially along ethnic lines, and in 1966 after the creation of the Alaska Federation of Natives (AFN) — on multi-ethnic grounds. The AFN came out with the issue of traditional crafts involving the allocation of special land, as well as claims for compensation for alienated land and the transfer of raw materials. The result was the adoption of the Act by the US Congress to resolve land claims Alaska natives (ANCSA) in 1971. The agreement consisted of the transfer of 44 million acres of land and 962.5 million dollars compensation for lost land [17].

Canada currently applies a standard contract between companies and local communities, which includes their participation in getting profits and measures to support the culture and traditional way of life. On the basis of equal partnership, residents of the northern territories have the right to decide where and what will be produced3.

In Russia, where federal law secures the rights of indigenous peoples, stating that they are entitled to compensation for losses and damage caused due to the economic activity in the territo- ries of their primordial residence and companies have no obligation to pay compensation. They do it on a voluntary basis, on the basis of agreements with communities and the regional authorities4.

Thus, greater efforts of indigenous peoples to defend their rights in developed democracies had important political consequences. First, on the basis of joint political activities of indigenous people, a special form of supra-ethnic identity — “indigenous peoples” was formed. At the same time indigenousness acts as a form of cross-border self-organization of indigenous peoples. Researchers note that the policy of the revival of indigenous cultures occupied mostly urban people who have a pretty good education and the ability to communicate at the international level. The population engaged in traditional economy (e.g. reindeer herders) is often deprived of the possibility of such participation and not included in these political processes [18, p. 29].

Second , developed countries institutionalized the idea of special rights of indigenous peoples, including special rights in the territory of residence. The recognition of indigenous peoples and their special collective rights generally called as “an indigenous perspective” [19, p. 62-95].

Third , important international legal instruments, fixing the special, more extensive rights were adopted. The most important of them are the International Labour Organization Convention N 169 “On Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries” (1989) and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2007).

Thus, by the end of the 29th century the world has undergone significant institutional changes with regard to indigenous peoples, recognition their rights and legal status. As rightly observes V.Vladimirova: “The International Indigenous activism creates a space for the formation of a broader indigenous identity, incorporating unity and universality of indigenous peoples at the global level, based on the similar stories of oppression and colonial domination and of the ongoing marginalization in the world, while reaffirming. These policies differ at the local level”. [18, p. 47] The researchers noted a significant difference in the value approaches to the development of policy in relation to indigenous peoples. If in the Anglo-Saxon countries — the US, Canada and Australia — the policy towards the indigenous population has an impact of the colonialist past, the perception of Aboriginal people as “uncivilized” and backward; in the Nordic countries, indigenous peoples, using similar adaptation practices and they are not perceived as “strangers” but in the context of “others”.

By now Russia has largely formed legal framework to protect the rights and traditional way of life of the indigenous peoples of the North. Russian Constitution guarantees the rights of indig- enous peoples in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law and international treaties of the Russian Federation. For comparison, the Australian Constitution has no statement that Australian Aborigines are the original inhabitants of the continent. Russia is a party to international instruments relating to indigenous peoples, including the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples adopted by resolution 61/295 of the General Assembly of September 13, 2007. It should be noted that Russia has not ratified the ILO Convention № 169. The reason — the difference in the interpretation of the concept of “indigenous peoples” (in the Russian legislation for the recognition of indigenous people's traditional way of life the criterion of small size is required). In addition, Art. 14 ILO 169 recognizes the right to ownership and possession of the lands which they traditionally occupy5. Russian legislation does not contain provisions that reinforce the ownership of the land for the people along ethnic lines.

At the federal level we have repeatedly affirmed state program of socio-economic development. In February 2009, the Order of the Government approved the Concept of Sustainable Development of Indigenous Peoples of the North, Siberia and the Far East. The purpose of the Concept is the sustainable development of small peoples of the North by strengthening their socioeconomic potential, maintaining the traditional lands, way of life and cultural values of these peoples. The legislation provides for state support of small peoples in the form of incentives, subsidies, quotas for use of biological resources. Benefits for minorities of the North, living in places of traditional residence and traditional economic activities and engaged in traditional economic activities are provided by the Tax Code, the Forest Code, the Water and the Land Code of the Russian Federation. In February 2009, the Russian government approved the “Concept of Sustainable Development of Indigenous Peoples of the North, Siberia and the Russian Far East”. Its purpose is a sustainable development of the North, which in turn requires the strengthening of social and economic potential, preservation traditional way of life and cultural values on the basis of targeted government support and the mobilization of internal resources of the peoples themselves in the interest of present and future generations.

Paternalism in relation to the indigenous peoples of the North should, if possible, maintains their traditional economy. In “Principles of State Policy of the Russian Federation in the Arctic until 2020” (2008) emphasizes the need for a constructive dialogue and a greater involvement of municipalities, indigenous people and non-governmental organizations in the political process.

Today the need for a special state policy towards indigenous peoples does not cause any controversy among the scientific community or among managers. With regard to the value bases of policies there is an interaction between the state and the IP (indigenous peoples) and this issue is controversial. According to the author, modern Russian ethnic policy in the North has at least three mandatory approaches: the state-paternalistic, liberal market and neotraditionalist.

Representatives of the first, state-paternalistic approach , start from an inability of small peoples of the North to cope with the problems of adaptation of their way of life to modern socioeconomic conditions. Supporters of the paternalistic approach (some experts and representatives of IP associations of the North) stand for an all-round state aid, the loss of which would entail the threat of depopulation and the complete disappearance of the ethnic groups. The implementation of state-paternalistic approach, with regard to ethnic minorities, is largely dependent on the ability of the IP leaders to lobby their interests in governmental institutions.

Supporters of the second, the liberal market approach (mostly federal government officials) appeal to the neo-liberal values — the market, competition, equal opportunities determined by economy and modern social processes. Responsibility of the State is to create an investment climate, to support private initiative, to promote the “embedding” of traditional crafts in liberal market realities. For example, the right to use natural resources should reveal on the basis of tenders and auctions. Supporters of the liberal market approach speak about limited public resources able to support the IP of the North, targeted state aid, the inadmissibility of extending the ethnic groups belonging. Their argument meets support among managers and some of the experts concerned about the spread of dependency attitudes among the small people, and among young people, in particular. The state implemented policies towards indigenous people have a clear liberal market vector. In a speech to the IP Congress President of RAIPON S.N. Kharyuchi noted that since 2009 the Federal Law “On fishing and preservation of marine biological resources” lacks the rules on obtaining fishing areas for traditional fishing without holding a competition. As a result, many communities have lost the right to catch fish on their ancestral lands, because they could not win the completion and offer the most favorable conditions for the government. The Federal Law “On hunting and preservation of hunting resources”, reinforced in 2010, is not providing the possibility communities and IP associations of the North with hunting areas for traditional hunting [20, p. 4].

Third, “neotraditionalist” approach was originally formulated by A.I. Pika [21, 1996]. He advocates the rejection of assimilation modernization of culture and lifestyle of the IP of the North, providing them with legal and economic support independent development of the economy, culture and local governing in the current economic conditions. The main goal of public policy, according to “neotraditsionalists” should be to shift towards economic independence and national-territorial (community) self-management of small peoples, their establishment as real subjects of social, economic and cultural development. Neotraditionalism involves a return to traditional economy lessons that can ensure the existence of the IP — hunting, fishing, reindeer husbandry and handicrafts. In the political sphere “neotraditsionalists” insist on a direct relationship “Center — the peoples of the North”. According to them, leaving the problem of minorities of the North in the exclusive competence of the administration of territories and regions is inappropriate and short-sighted.

Thus, two of the three approaches to public policy in relation to indigenous peoples have significant methodological disadvantages. The main disadvantage of the protectionist approach is that indigenous peoples are considered only as a subject of public policy. Excessive protectionism of the government eliminates the initiative of indigenous ethnic groups. The implementation of the protectionist approach is hardly possible in terms of socio-economic crisis and budget cuts. Second, the liberal approach involves support of the market and competition but the realities of the Far North turn it to be like social Darwinism. Third, neotraditionalist approach is implying feasible joint development of traditional culture in modern economic conditions and it looks the most promising, combining the interests of the state and indigenous peoples. Socio-economic development and social and political representativeness of the indigenous ethnic groups helps to gain subjectivity, acting not only as an subject of public policy, but also opens the ways to influence the political decisions.

Conclusion

Russian Arctic is a territory with a specific climate and socio-economic characteristics of the population, cultural and historical traditions that should be taken into account when developing and implementing the state ethnic policy in the region. The most important instrument underlining the unifying role of Russia in the Eurasian space are at the disposal of the state — ethnonational and migration policy. Formation of the state migration and ethnic policy based on the principles of civilizational unity is the natural process and it meets the national interests of the country. Even if migration, demographic and social policy of the state are not included in the structure of ethno-national policy, they have a direct impact on its results.

Backbone principles of the state ethnic policy are citizenship and the priority of human rights and freedoms. At the same time, the objectives of ethno-national policy of Russia in the Russian Arctic serves to preserve the integrity of the country, the prevention of separatism and conflicts on ethnic grounds. The means of implementing the goals and objectives of ethno- national policy of Russia in the Arctic, their imperative grounds, in our opinion, should be seen as the development of the Arctic zone, preserving the native areas of indigenous peoples of the North and people protection strategy. The criteria for the effective implementation of ethnic policy are the view of the Russian Arctic as an area of peace and reconciliation, the strengthening of the all-Russian civic identity, the harmonization of interethnic and inter-confessional relations, as the conditions for the development of this important geopolitical macro-region of Russia.