April 20, 2022 Author
Graduate Fellow with North American and Arctic Defense Security Network, PhD Candidate in Political Science, Colorado State University Colorado State University provides funding as a member of The Conversation US.
For the past quarter-century, the Arctic has been a unique zone of cooperation among the eight countries of the high north: Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Russia and the United States. Even when relations between Moscow and the West soured, the Arctic Council’s work was a reminder that multilateral partnerships could thrive despite global discord.
The point of the Arctic Council is to foster collaboration in areas such as scientific research, search and rescue operations and the challenges posed by climate change. Under its auspices, friends and adversaries alike – as well as nonstate actors, such as Indigenous groups – can sit down, talk and find common ground. In early 2022, lawmakers from Norway nominated the council for the Nobel Peace Prize for its collaborative spirit.
That collaboration ended shortly after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on Feb. 24, 2022. One week after the start of the war, seven of the eight Arctic Council members announced that they would “pause” their work with the organization. Russia, which holds the council’s presidency through 2023, was left ostracized.
The freeze of the Arctic Council is a loss on many fronts. As a scholar of Arctic security, I see cooperation in the region as essential to global security, and I believe an expanded set of institutions is needed to reflect new global realities as the Arctic warms.
Security and cooperation in the Arctic
The eight Arctic countries formed the Arctic Council in 1996. While the council explicitly steers clear of military issues, its members are stewards of the Arctic region. Unsurprisingly, the organization has grown in importance with global warming.
Warmer temperatures and declining sea ice are opening new shipping routes and, likely, expanding opportunities to exploit oil, gas and other critical minerals – changes that could spur conflict if not handled carefully.
Through the council, the Arctic states have made agreements related to search and rescue operations, oil pollution and scientific collaboration. The council has tracked environmental changes in the region with its yearly Arctic Climate Impact Assessment reports. Even when relations between East and West were at their worst, including in 2014 when Russia invaded and annexed the Crimean Peninsula from Ukraine, joint endeavors in the Arctic remained strong.
Pausing the work of the Arctic Council was an understandable response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Yet in doing so, the other Arctic countries lost a valuable line of communication with Moscow. In time, it will be important to resume the council or establish a new institution in its place.
Indeed, working with Russia in the Arctic is even more important now than it was before the invasion. From a global security perspective, it is essential that the hot war in Europe be prevented from spilling over into the Arctic and one of the world’s last wildernesses.
The case for engaging Russia
Consider, for example, that while tensions are at an all-time high in Ukraine, it might be easy to mistake a flock of geese or a meteor shower for a military attack. Having a way for errors like these to be quickly remedied will be important in this new era of geopolitical competition.
Preserving and enhancing cooperation in the Arctic will take bold leadership. Some critics argue that institutionalizing military dialogue with Russia in the Arctic is an improper response to wanton aggression in Eastern Europe and could be seen as legitimizing Russia’s actions. These are valid concerns.
However, giving up on cooperation would be a mistake. The whole world will benefit if the high north can avoid the fate of militarization, a costly arms race and the terrible specter of war.
Ideally, engaging Russia within an expanded set of regional institutions – an invigorated Arctic Council, to be sure, but also a new military forum – would precipitate a cooperation spiral, increasing cooperation that could help lessen tensions elsewhere. Even if collaboration were confined to the Arctic, this would boost global security.
A new Arctic?
In the past, the Arctic states sought to maintain peace and stability in their region by divorcing contentious military issues from areas where common ground was easier to find. This has been the modus vivendi of the Arctic Council since its founding.
Going forward, it would be better to recognize that robust and ongoing cooperation is needed on security issues, too. Trust between Russia and the West might never return, but cooperation in the Arctic cannot be allowed to disappear with it.
September 17, 2021 12.13pm EDT
For generations, the Arctic has captured our imaginations as a region of contradictions. It is simultaneously a frozen wilderness, home to indigenous peoples, a place of historic military tensions and an area of emerging economic opportunity that is eyed with much interest.
The Arctic Council was founded in 1996 with great hopes for peaceful engagement with Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The forum is the principal body for Arctic dialogue on environmental protection and sustainable development, and celebrates its 25th anniversary on September 19.
After quarter of a century, the Arctic Council stands as a testament to co-operation and dialogue in the region, helping to establish diplomacy between Russia and the western Arctic states – US, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Sweden and Norway – and indigenous peoples.
It has also successfully facilitated co-operation in areas such as marine search and rescue and addressing Soviet-era environmental damage in the Russian Arctic. But the council also faces calls to improve and evolve in response to growing challenges in the region such as climate change.
The cold war limited Arctic cooperation, the key exception being the 1973 polar bear conservation agreement. The Arctic Council’s creation was significant because it demonstrated a concerted effort to create a positive relationship between the western Arctic states and Russia.
The west is accustomed to viewing Russia as a global villain. But in the Arctic, Russia subverts this stereotype as an active regional ally and partner in the Arctic Council.
The reality is that the council would not work without Russia. Its importance in regional co-operation is why the forum does not deal with military issues. The lack of military discussions has exposed the Arctic Council to criticism for omitting a major regional topic.
However, the Arctic states see military issues as redirecting regional focus on political differences between Russia and the western Arctic states. The eight Arctic states want to focus on common goals and finding ways to co-operate for the benefit of all in the region.
The other unique feature of the Arctic Council is the the way indigenous peoples’ organisations are included in all aspects of its work. These are permanent participants and include: the Aleut International Association, the Arctic Athabaskan Council, the Gwich'in Council International, the Inuit Circumpolar Council, the Russian Association of Indigenous Peoples of the North (RAIPON) and the Saami Council.
These permanent participants are akin to the Arctic states in many respects, and noticeably different from observer members (non-Arctic states, NGOs and intergovernmental and inter-parliamentary organisations). Permanent participants cannot be removed from the forum whereas the observer member positions are conditional, routinely reassessed and can be revoked.
Over 25 years, the Arctic Council has had its ups and downs. In the mid-2000s politicians and diplomats from non-Arctic states mistakenly saw the Arctic Council as an Arctic UN. This misunderstanding caused considerable problems for the Arctic states. They were inundated with requests for membership in 2008 from non-Arctic states which expected to have a large input into the governance of the region.
The sudden interest was prompted by the 2008 US Geological Survey report on the estimates of undiscovered oil and gas north of the Arctic Circle. The interest was further spurred by simplified perceptions about Arctic accessibility due to climate change and misunderstandings about the governance and sovereignty in the region.
The biggest myth was that the Arctic was unclaimed. The council has spent years trying to help people understand that the region has long been part of the adjacent Arctic states and is home to many indigenous peoples, and that the international law of the sea applies to much of the region – especially coastal areas.
More recently, regional co-operation faced a major hurdle in the 2014 Russian-Ukrainian war over Crimea. The western Arctic states are members of Nato and Russia’s aggression against Ukraine strained the relationship. However, the council weathered the Crimea conflict because the Arctic states recognise that despite disagreement, they are stronger in the Arctic when they coordinate and work together.
The Arctic region is unique and the challenges of operating there are exceptional. Effort to address issues like search and rescue emergency responses and marine oil pollution protection require regional coordination and that’s what the Arctic Council does well.
But it is not without its limitations. For example, the forum does not have an independent budget. Projects and initiatives are sponsored by member states, but this lack of specific budget can slow their progress.
The Arctic Council will need to continue to adapt as it helps tackle new and emerging challenges. The Arctic’s fragile ecosystems face issues such as rising sea levels and decreasing ice thickness and coverage. To address these issues requires innovative planning, co-operation and commitment by Arctic states and the international community. But for a region previously characterised by tension and disagreement, 25 years of diplomacy and dialogue remains a major achievement.