The concept of the Arctic Council was well-founded; a non-military international institution aimed at fostering communication and cooperation between Arctic nations to benefit their shared arctic environment and people living in arctic regions. While this is a noble intention that should be pursued, the execution of that goal has been disappointing, to say the least. The Arctic Council, as it currently stands, is nothing more than an extension of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). The United States, Norway, Finland, Canada, Iceland, and Denmark are all NATO countries, and Sweden is currently applying for membership status to join NATO. That leaves out one major player – Russia. Following the de-escalation of the Cold War, all of these nations were able to work together effectively under the beginning of the Russo-Ukrainian war.
Russia, who used to be the chair of the Council, is all but excluded from the Arctic Council, despite (as mentioned in my last post) the nation consists of over 40% of total Arctic land area. It is a tragedy that researchers and policymakers might be banned from one half of the Arctic. Under the pretense of national security, vital environmental issues like climate change, natural resource extraction, and pollution are being ignored. Humanitarian issues including Arctic populations’ access to healthcare, energy, transportation, education, and internet have been neglected. If the Arctic Council is going to be a successful intergovernmental organization, then all nations need to set aside military tensions and insecurity for the common good – and the Arctic Council can only improve prospects of peace if all military aspects of the organization are dropped or ignored.
Hi Paul,
That’s an interesting viewpoint and gives a new perspective on the often positively mentioned Arctic Council. As I have not read that much into it, how would you argue that it de facto is an extension of NATO? I am curious and honestly don’t know, (I am looking up the AC mission statement right now, haha), and this very long quote (taken from https://arctic-council.org/about/norway-chair-2/) focuses on cooperation and environment, plus the people in the North. In general, it seems rather positive not focused on military conflict:
“The overall objective for Norway’s Chairship of the Arctic Council will be to promote stability and constructive cooperation in the Arctic. Norway will focus on the core issues the Council deals with, including impacts of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to enhance the well-being of people living in the region. Through four priority topics: the oceans; climate and environment, sustainable economic development; and people in the North, Norway will continue to pursue the long-term approach taken by the Council in its important efforts to ensure a vibrant and sustainable Arctic region. Arctic youth and Arctic Indigenous Peoples are cross-cutting priorities of the Norwegian Chairship.”
I understand that Russia now is in a difficult situation due to their aggression in the Ukraine, and I understand your argument about the problematic situation that Russia is an Arctic player who also is part of the AC. Do you think that this can change in the future, or do you have any thought about how the situation in terms of Russia within the AC could continue?
Thank you for giving this input, it is definitely something to think about! If you have an suggestions for readings that line out your point more, that would be cool too.