Pondering an Arctic Council

NOT SO LONG AGO the notion of an international council of arctic states was difficult even to conceive. The seemingly inexorable grip of militarism still held at bay genuine efforts to foster circumpolar co-operation, and many spoke of the coming era as one which would witness the emergence of the Arctic as a strategic theatre for global warfare.

 That was then, this is now. So much has happened in so short a space of time that the confident, if alarming, predictions of two and three years ago read like a how-to primer for neo-McCarthyites. The arguments in favour of nuclear submarines, cruise missile testing, and low-level flights have suddenly lost their fizz, replaced by seemingly boundless enthusiasm for all manner of multilateral dealings.

 History will likely record that the new order in arctic relations was, like so many recent events, a product of glasnost and perestroika, ideas still untarnished by the harsh glare of reality back in 1987. More precisely, it was ushered in with the Murmansk speech of Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev in October of that year when he called upon the arctic states to set aside their differences and to join in "a genuine zone of peace and fruitful co-operation". Wary at first, the West was slow to acknowledge that a new age had dawned. Indeed, it was not until November 1989, during a visit to Leningrad, that Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney followed up with the tentative question: "And why not a council of Arctic Countries eventually coming into existence to co-ordinate and promote co-operation among them?"

 Hindsight, it has often been observed, is 20/20. Now, as the countries of the arctic rim ponder the prospect of enhanced co-operation—indeed, the establishment of a formal multilateral council—it is all too easy to forget the difficulties which for so long prevented real progress in the areas of aboriginal rights, environmental protection, and economic development. While there is ample cause for cheering the consultations set to begin this fall, it is important that the perspective of history not be lost. Serious issues remain to be resolved. Substantive negotiations must begin once the novelty of co-operation has worn off.

This issue of Northern Perspectives presents excerpts from the May 1991 report of the Arctic Council Panel, an independent group established in January 1990 to study the feasibility of an arctic council and to suggest possible structures and functions. During the summer of 1990, members of the panel travelled in the Canadian Arctic to determine how best such an international body might meet the concerns and needs of northerners. A draft statement was prepared and informal discussions held with federal and territorial government officials in October and November 1990. Speaking in Ottawa on 28 November 1990,~ Secretary of State for External Affairs Joe Clark stated Canada's intention to propose an Arctic Council to its circumpolar neighbours at the ministerial meeting on an arctic environmental accord to be held at Rovaniemi in June.

 At that meeting, Canada's Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Tom Siddon, reiterated the government's position in discussions with his arctic counterparts. Two days later, at a meeting of northern aboriginal leaders in Copenhagen, he declared:

 There remain as well questions regarding the eventual relationship between an arctic council and other multinational bodies, including the Northern Forum, an association of northern regions founded at Anchorage in the autumn of 1990. Whereas proposals for an arctic council have tended to emphasize shared environmental concerns among the arctic states and have, in fact, used the success of the "Rovaniemi process" as a basis for co-operative action, the Northern Forum has emphasized commercial aims, and the strengthening of economic ties. For example, at its first formal session in May 1991, a leading topic of discussion was the viability of an Arctic Ocean alternative to the Panama and Suez canals.

 It is important also to remember that success in the field of arctic diplomacy depends to a large measure on the state of global politics. Arctic issues are popular when other issues—the MidEast, the Persian Gulf—are not. Even at home, official interest in the Arctic has been sporadic, often taking a back seat to more exotic climes, as witness Canada's campaign to join the Organization of American States. On the other hand, it is often something of a shock to discover that Canadians' predisposition to things northern is a trait not shared by the other countries of the region.

In Washington, U.S. arctic interests have rarely been accorded national attention; Alaskans often remark that the Exxon Valdez at least reminded other Americans of the existence of the 50th state The Nordic countries, while sharing to a degree the nordicite identified by Louis Hamelin nevertheless tend to view "arctic " issues not as a distinct realm but as an aspect of national policy. The Soviet Union, now undergoing dramatic political and economic upheaval is perhaps most similar to Canada as an arctic "power"; yet, again, the differences are important—native people constitute 45 per cent of the population in northern Canada; in the Soviet Union, just 2 per cent. Iceland, having neither regions nor an aboriginal population, might not be blamed for seeing a broadly structured arctic council as ill-suited to its national aims.

Nevertheless, the need for dialogue is long overdue. Some have suggested that the Arctic should be designated an international park, or a multinational jurisdiction with a treaty system similar to that employed with reasonable success in the Antarctic. Yet the presence of indigenous peoples and resource-based industries would seem to argue against such an approach.

 Finally, there must be consideration of the formal structure and operation of an arctic council. In April of this year, a working group of the National Capital Branch of the Canadian Institute of International Affairs produced, in conjunction with CARC, The Arctic Environment and Canada's International Relations. Reproduced in this issue of Northern Perspectives is a draft arctic council treaty prepared for discussion by Donat Pharand, Professor Emeritus of International Law at the University of Ottawa.

 
AKS