On February 5, the report from Naalakkersuisoq Naaja H. Nathanielsen (IA) said that the expert group, which had to assess, among other things, whether the spiral case could be described as genocide, had submitted its report, and now only awaited translation and an internal process before the report could be published.
A new and completely different report came from Naalakkersuisoq on Thursday that the expert group had split in two and submitted two reports instead of one due to professional disagreements.
Two of the group's four members left the group in December and January, respectively, and the two have been allowed to submit their own reports in Danish.
Why didn't Nathanielsen tell about the two reports?
Sermitsiaq has asked Naalakkersuisoq Naaja H. Nathanielsen (IA) why she has withheld information about the two reports from the public:
- We just needed a talk in the department about how we approached it. We should also have talked to the researchers whether they were in agreement with us doing a peer review, says Naaja H. Nathanielsen.
She refers here to the fact that she has decided that the two reports should be subjected to so-called peer review, where they are assessed by other researchers.
She says that she wanted a clear plan instead of issuing drip-feed announcements:
- We should first talk to the researchers whether they were okay with us doing it that way, and then we should find someone to peer review.
- We have that now, and therefore I am comfortable with being able to go out and give an explanation, but also an end date for when we expect to be able to come up with something. We can do that in mid-May, says Naaja H. Nathanielsen.
Not a Naalakkersuisut decision
Has it been brought up in Naalakkersuisut, or is it something you are making a decision on?
- I have made a decision that this is the way we will handle it, but I have of course discussed it with my colleagues in Naalakkersuisut.
- There is no document with a decision on it, but I have been keeping it up to date and have given them briefings, and this morning there will also be a briefing for the Inatsisartut committee, so that they are also informed about this process, says Naaja H. Nathanielsen and continues:
- From my chair, it has been about ensuring that the debate that comes as a result of the reports is not about whether the reports can be challenged professionally, but it will be about the content.
Differences in reports
Naaja H. Nathanielsen will not comment on whether the conclusions in the two reports are very different, but does say:
- I have no intention of holding on to this knowledge. I am dying to talk about this, but I think it is useless to have a discussion about whether something is wrong or whether it is methodologically wrong.
- But of course they are different, because they have disagreed. It is clear that they disagree about something professional.
Decision made before the election was called
It is suggested that you should withhold the reports because of the election. What do you say to that?
- The decision to do a peer review was made before the election was called.
- We have known that there was a challenge here since December, when a member of the expert group steps down, where we agree that he can submit a separate contribution, because we do not wish to discredit anyone's expression or contribution.
- The next one will come out in January, and then we have a discussion about the fact that the two would like to do it together, says Naaja H. Nathanielsen and continues:
- This process has been going on long before the election, and the handling of it has been going on long before the election, so it has no connection with the election, and it has no connection with what happened geopolitically and in relation to the US focus on Greenland.
- For me, it has been purely and simply an attempt to land a professional disagreement in a way that does not become a showstopper for the work that has been done by all four experts.
