A U.S. foreign policy analyst has suggested that the NATO-Russia Council could serve as a forum for Russia and the West to discuss issues in the Arctic. The Council had its second meeting yesterday after being suspended in the aftermath of the Russia-Georgia conflict. Dr. Charles M. Perry, vice president and director of studies at the Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis, said,

“There are some contentions about who owns what. The NATO-Russia forum would be an excellent place to talk about things like Arctic security. Not necessarily solving it all bilaterally…this concerns everybody in the region and right now we are not talking about it very well.”

The IFPA is a conservative think tank, while this story was reported in RIA Novosti, a Russian state-owned newspaper. Perhaps, then, the Kremlin would be keen on discussing the Arctic in the NATO council, since the news report is generally positive. But getting all of the Arctic states within NATO to agree to partake in such discussions might prove difficult. Only a few weeks ago, Russia kicked two NATO diplomats out of Moscow who happened to be Canadian - the country with which tensions in the Arctic are arguably the highest. Furthermore, there has also been talk among Russian policymakers that greater Nordic security cooperation would be a good development because it would counterbalance NATO and enable Russia to have a separate forum in which to discuss the Arctic.

News links:

“U.S. analyst says NATO-Russia Council ideal for Arctic talks,” RIA Novosti

For some news on the lighter side, extreme wilderness photographer Martin Hartley has just returned home after taking part on the Catlin Arctic Survey, a team of three British explorers who spent two and a half months walking across frozen sea ice, charting its thickness as they went. In total, Hartley has been on nineteen expeditions to the Arctic and Antarctic.

Hartley’s photos are quite stunning and more unique than the usual white ice against a grey sea. The ones on his website are from March 2003. I think they give a good sense of what it must be like to trek across the top of the world, with pictures of bundled-up explorers, snow-dusted dogs, and even an Arctic graveyard.

© Martin Hartley

Link: Martin Hartley Arctic Photography

On Tuesday, Norwegian Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg visited Russian President Dmitri Medvedev at his residence outside Moscow. The two leaders discussed cooperation in the Arctic, mainly regarding the issue of gas. Medvedev said, “The development of the region as a whole depends on how we form a coordinated position on exploring the gas fields on the Arctic shelf. I think this is one of the most important areas of our cooperation.” The Russian president was chair of Gazprom’s board of directors until just a little over a year ago.

Stoltenberg also visited Prime Minister Vladimir Putin. Together, they discussed Russia’s presence in Svalbard and the gas field at Shtokman, which Putin noted was a “big bilateral project between our two countries.”

Location of Shtokman Field. © BBC.

At the Shtokman Field, which lies 600 kilometers off the coast of the Kola Peninsula in the Barents Sea, Gazprom is working with Norwegian company StatoilHydro and French company Total in order to obtain much-needed technical assistance and investments. Though the conditions are extremely challenging, these two companies have familiarity working in such environments - and the capital to afford to do so. According to Rosneft, it will cost $2.6 trillion to develop offshore oil and gas.

Norwegian involvement in Shtokman also gives it some leverage with Russia, for whom offshore oil development is vital to maintain current levels of production in the future. This leverage could possibly be used to turn a lawsuit regarding the possible confiscation of Norwegian state-owned company Telenor’s 29.9% stake in Russian telecommunications company VimpelCom in Norway’s favor.

Map of Disputed Area, with gas fields. © Barents Observer

Another issue discussed -  but far from resolved - between Russia and Norway was the status of the “grey zone” in the Barents Sea, where both countries’ territorial claims overlap over a resource-rich area of 175,000 square kilometers. The United Nations ruled earlier this month that since both countries have legitimate claims to the area, the dispute would have to be resolved bilaterally. Norway wants the territory to be divided based on a dividing line drawn through the middle of the area, while Russia wants the division to be based on the “principal of justice,” which would entail drawing borders in respect to the western coasts of Soviet Arctic territories.

Aside from these sticky disputes, Norwegian-Russia relations are generally friendly. Last year, trade between the two countries increased 45%. Stoltenberg and Norwegian Defense Minister Jonas Gahr Støre have often commented that they are not worried by Russian military development in the Arctic, saying that it is only logical. While there have been a few minor spats over Russian jet exercises outside of Norwegian airspace, tensions have never reached the level of the Canadian-Russian relationship, for example.

News links
“Medvedev gratulerte Stoltenberg med Grand Prix-seieren”, Aftenposten (in Norwegian)

“An offer you can’t refuse,” Moscow News

“Russia, Norway discuss Arctic energy development,” AFP

“Russie-Norvège: le partage de l’Arctique n’aura pas lieu,” Kommersant (Russian translated into French)

Canada has just concluded a geological expedition in the Arctic in the run-up to its submission of territorial claims. A two-team expedition of federal geologists and oceanographers examined land from Ward Hunt Island, Canada’s northernmost point, to the North Pole. One group conducted research via a sonar probe from a helicopter and the other used an aerogravity probe from an airplane. If Canada can prove that the land is an extension of their continental shelf, as Norway did just a few weeks ago, the United Nations will likely grant them sovereign rights over the territory, a distinction from complete sovereignty. If a claim were successful, a country would be granted full exploitation of the territory’s resources, but would not have the power to regulate not shipping, since this far out from a country’s proper borders, the right of free passage reigns supreme.

UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, Article77: Rights of the coastal State over the continental shelf: 1. “The coastal State exercises over the continental shelf sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring it and exploiting its natural resources.”

It is exactly these exploitation rights that countries are seeking.

Location of Ward Hunt Island

Currently, Canada is also undertaking another study at Ellesmere Island, a bit to the south of Ward Hunt Island. Here, they tested out a new robotic mapping system that will scan the seabed. Evidence must be submitted to the United Nations Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (UNCLCS) by 2013. Countries have ten years to submit claims from the date they ratified the U.N. Law of the Sea Treaty. Of the remaining Arctic states, Russia’s deadline just passed on May 13, 2009. Denmark has until 2012. Of course, since the United States hasn’t ratified UNCLOS, it has no deadline. On the other hand, without representatives on the UNCLCS, the U.S. won’t be able to block any country’s attempts at claiming territorial sovereignty.

Although if a country misses the deadline, it technically should miss out on the potential for any territorial acquisitions, the UNCLCS is unlikely to punish countries for tardiness. Expeditions are long and expensive, and poor countries often have to rely on wealthy ones for technical assistance. For instance, south of the Equator, the Netherlands Law of the Sea Institute helped the former Dutch colony of Suriname draw up claims for an area in the Carribbean rich in natural gas.

There were talks of submitting a joint Canadian-Danish-Russian claim, which are still up in the air. According to the New York Times, Russia has decided postpone the submission of its claims to 2013 as it waits for Canada and Denmark to finish their surveys. The latter two countries have actually worked jointly on scientific expeditions to map the controversial Lomonosov Ridge, the part of the Arctic seabed that all three countries are seeking to claim. It is uncertain whether the land is an extension of the North American continent, Greenland, or Siberia.

A Russian official suggested in regards to the submission of the claim, “Maybe it will happen before that.” However, he added that Russia has not yet decided when to submit its claim and that his country faces “no real deadline.”

In fact, the UNCLCS might want countries to actually delay their submissions, for it could take up to 21 years to resolve the existing 69 land claims alone.

News links

“Seabed claims mount, swamping U.N. Commission,”- New York Times

“Pushing to the pole before Arctic seabed deadline,” Canada.com

This year, Canada has involved itself in a number of trans-Arctic and trans-Atlantic disputes. In February, there was the military jet incident with Russia. Spats with Russia have spilled over into the NATO sphere, as Canada pushes for Georgia and Ukraine to join to the Kremlin’s chagrin. Then at the beginning of this month after the EU voted to ban seal product imports, Canada threatened to take the issue to the WTO. And at the Canada-EU Summit in Prague last week, the seal debate eclipsed what was supposed to be the main topic of discussion: free-trade.

Whether Canadian’s Arctic agenda is seen in a positive or negative light, the country’s foreign policy posture has changed dramatically in recent years. Canada purports to be a much more important player on the international scene than it did under the previous Liberal administration. In 2006, the newly-formed Conservative Party, a coalition party formed by the merging of the Canadian Alliance and PC Party, won the most number of seats in the federal election, making it the new majority party. (For a deeper look into the recent history of Canada’s political about-face, Slate published a good article last September.)

Harper became prime minister at this time, and for him, Arctic sovereignty has been a top priority, with “use it or lose it” mentality, a term Harper himself has used. He has even employed soft power tactics abroad, such as art shows and cultural events, to further Canada’s push for sovereignty. Under his administration, all cultural programs held by embassies abroad must serve to advance Canadian policy goals.

The Globe and Mail, Canada’s biggest national newspaper, published two interesting articles this week on Canada’s role in the Arctic.

The first one, called “How Harper’s European spring turned sour,” argues that Canada’s aggression in the Arctic has undermined its attempts to reach out to Europe. Canada, the article argues, is trying so hard to demonstrate its Arctic sovereignty and rebuff other countries’ claims - particularly those of Russia - that it has ended up looking like the Bear itself:

Canada’s Arctic-ownership agenda is being pushed, but Nordic leaders and EU officials complain that Ottawa’s bellicose tone sounds more like Moscow’s unilateralism than their co-operative vision.

The second editorial, “Canada to World: Hands off,” offers an in-depth examination into Canada’s new pro-sovereignty, pro-Arctic policy. Canada’s push to show that the Arctic - or at least the 1/3 of it that Canada is claiming - is Maple Leaf territory,  is taking place across diplomatic, military, and cultural fronts. The diplomatic-cultural part of its agenda involves, among other things, opening a Canadian International Centre for the Arctic Region in Oslo. The government claims the purposes for the office are to promote Canadian interests in the Arctic and act as a hub for international scientific research. Furthermore, photography exhibits centered on Canada’s Arctic and its people are also being held in places like Trafalgar Square.

The editorial concludes with this statement:

“But at its core is a far more simple and relentless message: It may be empty and cold and inaccessible, but it’s got a red-and-white flag on it.”

But upon closer inspection, Canada doesn’t seem to be all that concerned with maintaining 100% sovereignty in its Arctic affairs. BMT Fleet Technology, which though based in Ontario is a subsidy of British Marine Technology, recently won a $10.4 million contract to assist with engineering and logistics of Canada’s eight new ice-capable Arctic patrol ships, scheduled for delivery in 2013-2019. The ships themselves will be built in Aker Yards Marine of Vancouver, part of STX ASA, which is owned by a South Korean shipbuilding tycoon and headquartered in Oslo. Scottish company BAE Systems of Glasgow will also assist with the shipbuilding process. In the past, the company has helped integrate combat systems into ships’ technology.

And of course, the Conservative Party isn’t the only voice in Canada on Arctic issues. The Green Party, which has criticized the creation of an Arctic political office in Oslo, has its own platform here, which calls for more environmental and cultural protection. The Greens have criticized the Tories for being too focused on defense and security measures.

Like its fellow resident the polar bear, the little furry seal has been at the center of international disputes in recent weeks.

L to R: Harp seal, ringed seal, bearded seal

There are three species of seal in the Arctic: the harp seal, the ringed seal,and the bearded seal. The harp seal is white and fuzzy when it is a baby, and this is the one you see in anti-seal clubbing advertisements. However, hunting of the baby harp seal, called the whitecoat, was banned in 1987 by Canada. Hunters must wait for the whitecoat to lose its fuzzy fur in order to hunt it, which it does after about two weeks. The ringed seal lives in the Arctic year round, while the other two species migrate. The harp seal is the principle hunted species of seal.

The Seal Hunt

Seal hunting takes place in Canada, Greenland, Norway, and Russia. Canada is by far the largest seal hunter, with the quota set at 229,000 in 2009. Greenland is the second largest, hunting about 90,000 a year, followed by Norway and Russia with 29,000 and 5,476 respectively. Inuit seal hunting accounts for about 3% of the total seal hunt.

Every year, the Canadian government authorizes the slaughter of seals, claiming that the hunt is entirely sustainable. The seal population has tripled since the 1960s and does pose a threat to fish stocks. 70% of the sealing takes place around Newfoundland, while 30% takes place off Prince Edward Island.

In Canada, sealing is the 5th most profitable fishing industry. In 2005, the seal hunt was worth $16.5 million, which the Canadian government says provided a “significant” source of income when “other fishing options are unavailable, or limited at best, in many remote, coastal communities.” Environmentalist groups claim that this figure is actually trivial, and that Canadians would find other sources of employment if forced.

Seal products that are imported are not just the pelts, but also meat and oil, which is rich in Omega 3 fatty acids. The European Union accounts for 15 percent of Canadian seal imports, so a ban would deal a blow to the industry. Most of the country’s exports, however, go to Norway, which is not part of the European Union.

The Ban

On May 5, 2009, the European Union Parliament voted to ban the import of harp and hooded seal products, with a vote of 550 to 49. The ban is expected to go into effect in October 2009, in time for the 2010 seal hunt. The proposed resolution can be found here, on the EU Parliament’s website.

The resolution calls the ban “inherently inhumane,” stating that there is “clear evidence that seals killed in commercial seal hunts consistently suffer pain, distress and other forms of suffering.”

The resolution will also still allow Inuit communities to hunt seals,

“since subsistence hunting involves personal or family consumption only and does not constitute intra-Community trade. The hunt is an integrated part of the culture and the identity of the members of the Inuit society, and as such is protected by the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.”

Thus, personal use, cultural exchange, and small-scale trade would still be permitted.

At the same time, sealing will still be allowed in the European Union in order to protect fish stocks. Products from seals killed for such purposes will be allowed to be sold in Europe, an exemption Canadians and Inuits are calling hypocritical.

The United States has banned the import of seal products since 1972.

Reactions

Canada, Denmark, and Norway, all of which are home to sealers, had varying reactions. Canada and Norway have threatened to lodge formal protests, while Denmark has not.

The Canadian government claims that the ban will destroy the economies of Inuit communities that depend on sealing. In Nunavat, 35,000 seals are killed every year, and 10,000 to 11,000 are sold on the open market for trade.

Trade Minister Stockwell Day said, “If the EU imposes a trade ban on seal products it must contain an exemption for any country, like Canada, that has strict guidelines in place for humane and sustainable sealing practices. If there is no such acceptable exemption, Canada will challenge the ban at the World Trade Organization.” But such a fight could take years, meaning the Inuit economy is likely to be negatively impacted in the meanwhile.

Canadian Inuit leader Mary Simon said, “Inuit are devastated at today’s vote.” In an official statement from the Inuit of Canada, she wrote that “the inclusion of an Inuit exemption or derogation will be meaningless in the protection of our interests as it will not shield us from the negative forces of a market-wide downturn.

The Inuit in Canada will support Canada’s efforts if it goes to the WTO.

In Norway, which also has a sizeable seal industry, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Jonas Gahr Støre stated,

“An EU ban on trade in seal products could restrict our freedom to manage our own marine resources. Norwegian sealing takes a sustainable and modern approach to harvesting marine resources. We expect the EU to take due account of the scientific basis for Norwegian sealing. The ban is a serious challenge for us as a close partner of the EU.”

In Denmark, Christiav Rovsing, an MEP for the Conservative People’s Party, said, “There are some settlements that consist of between 10-20 people along the northern coast who depend on seal hunting…How can we expect them to survive economically if we rob them of their means to do so?’ Concerns about keeping Greenland economically viable are high in Denmark, which sends billions of dollars a year to the region in subsidies.

Denmark, however, was divided over the seal issue. Christel Schaldemose, a Danish Socialist Party MEP, voted in favor of the import ban, claiming that it sends “a clear message that animal rights were held in higher regard than market concerns in the EU.”

Threats from Nature

Seals are not just under threat from hunters. In the Arctic food chain, the ringed seal is polar bears’ prey of choice. Killer whales also hunt seals. In northern Scotland, where the ringed seal population has fallen up to 50% in some areas in the past decade, some scientists hold a rise in killer whale attacks responsible. Their hypothesis is that global warming has caused killer whales to migrate south, following fish stocks which have moved southward. However, hunting is also an important factor in the seals’ decline: 5,000 seals were killed last year to protect lucrative fish farms - a process that would still be allowed under the new EU ban.

Mercury contamination poses another threat to seals. Scientists have found that seals have higher levels of mercury than in the past, which might be an indirect effect of global warming as well. Warmer temperatures and shorter icy seasons lower pelagic reproductive levels, so seals are forced to eat more older fish, which have had a longer time to acquire mercury in their flesh. Eventually, this could mean higher mercury levels in animals higher up on the food chain, such as polar bears and humans.

News articles

Canada Battles the E.U. Over Baby Seals, Time Magazine

Nunavut, Inuit leaders vow to keep lobbying against EU seal ban, CBC News

Per B: EU forbud er kulturmord, Sermitsiaq (Greenlandic News, in Danish)

Two Arctic species - the two which happen to be the cutest and cuddliest, the poster children for Arctic wildlife conservation movements - have been in the news lately: polar bears and seals. I’ll cover the seal issue in my next post.

Polar Bears

To the disappointment of environmentalists, the Department of the Interior will uphold the special rule passed under the Bush administration limiting the use of the Endangered Species Act as a means to restrict greenhouse gas emissions - the so-called “polar bear 4(d) rule.” Secretary Ken Salazar qualified his decision by saying that the Department is open to increasing the amount of protected habitat for polar bears.

In May 2008, polar bears were put on the list of threatened species - the first species to be in danger due to global warming. Although the polar bear population has doubled since the 1960s after recovering from losses caused by aerial hunting and now hovers around 25,000, the loss of Arctic sea ice could reduce numbers by 15,000 - a huge step backwards. Some even claim polar bears could go extinct by 2050. Scientists believe that the greatest threat to the species’ existence is global warming, which itself is caused by greenhouse gas emissions. Salazar concurred that global warming is the main threat to polar bears, but observed that “the Endangered Species Act is not the appropriate tool for us to deal with what is a global issue, and that is the issue of global warming.”

By upholding the rule, actions taken outside of the polar bear’s actual habitat will not be considered as putting the species in jeopardy. Therefore, heavy contributors to global warming, such as coal-fired power plants and oil wells, for example, cannot be stopped with the reasoning that they will harm polar bears. A question-and-answer page from the Interior’s website said,

 ”It is currently not possible to directly link the emission of greenhouse gases from a specific power plant, etc. to effects on specific bears or bear populations.”

But oddly, other “indirect” pollutants, such as DDT and mercury, are allowed to be used as factors when judging the effect of a factory on a threatened or endangered species.

The Interior had also been worried that if they withdrew the rule, it would lead to “unnecessary confusion among the people of Alaska and regulated industries,” because a final special rule very similar to the current 4(d) rule is about to be put in place. The only difference between the two rules is that while the current interim 4(d) rule bans from consideration actions outside of Alaska, the final rule applies to actions outside of the polar bear’s habitat proper. Indeed, the oil industry and its benefactors were satisfied with the retention of the 4(d) rule. American Petroleum Institute President Jack Gerard announced, “This decision serves to protect the polar bear while providing greater regulatory certainty not only to the oil and natural gas industry but also to all U.S. manufacturers.” Alaska Governor Sarah Palin declared that the decision was “a clear victory for Alaska.”

Conversely, environmentalists were furious about the Interior’s decision. Noah Greenwald, the biodiversity program director at the Center for Biological Diversity, said, “For Salazar to adopt Bush’s polar bear extinction plan is confirming the worst fears of his tenure as Secretary of the Interior. Secretary Salazar would apparently prefer to please Sarah Palin than to protect polar bears.” Under Governor Palin, the state of Alaska was one of several groups to file a lawsuit against granting protection to polar bears, believing them not to be threatened.

Environmentalists have filed a lawsuit against the Interior for its decision on the 4(d) rule, on top of other lawsuits seeking to raise the status of polar bears from merely threatened to endangered. All six filings have been compiled into one lawsuit at the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, for which a conference will be held later this month. 

You can listen to a podcast of Secretary Salazar’s remarks here.

News links

“Interior will keep Bush’s polar bear rule,” New York Times

“The Thin Green Line: Polar Bear Protection,” The San Francisco Chronicle (includes press releases from the NRDC and Greenpeace)

Mock illustration from Discover Magazine.

Russia plans to build floating nuclear power stations in the Arctic in order to exploit its oil and gas reserves. The power stations, which will consist of two nuclear reactors atop a steel platform, will allow Gazprom to power its drills in the Arctic’s notoriously difficult waters. The floats would also maintain their own waste and only need to be serviced every 12-14 years.

The first nuclear power plant prototype will be finished next year. Four more are scheduled to be built following an agreement between the state nuclear corporation, Rosatom, and Yakutiya, a republic in northern Siberia.

Environmentalists were up in arms over the announcement, as a nuclear accident in the Arctic could be a disaster. A spokesperson from Bellona, a Norwegian environmental NGO, commented on Russia’s plan:

“It is highly risky. The risk of a nuclear accident on a floating power plant is increased. The plants’ potential impact on the fragile Arctic environment through emissions of radioactivity and heat remains a major concern. If there is an accident, it would be impossible to handle.”

When the Chernobyl incident occured in 1986, nuclear fallout poisoned the grass in the northern tundra of Scandinavia hundreds of miles away, permanently devastating the local Sami economic activity of reindeer herding.

A more likely occurence in regards to the floating power stations, though, is the dumping of radioactive waste directly into the water. Russia has a history of allowing nuclear submarines to simply decompose in the ocean like radioactive time bombs, despite British offers to help manage their decommisioning and clean-up.

 There is currently a multilateral effort underway to clean up nuclear waste in the Kola Peninsula, but Russia still allows a good amount of nuclear reactors to decay into the environment.

Russia is also considering constructing nuclear power plants on land to provide energy for its settlements in the North. In the eyes of the West, it seems that Russia is living up to its reputation of completely disregarding the environment - particularly in an area as sensitive as the Arctic.

News links:

Russia to build floating Arctic nuclear power stations, The Guardian 

Russia Plans to Power Arctic Oil Drilling With Floating Nuclear Plants, Discover Magazine

Arctic Council Map. Permanent members in dark blue; observers in light blue.

The second major event of the week in Tromsø was the biennial Arctic Council Ministerial Meeting. Representatives from all of the permanent member states of Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden, and the United States were in attendance, along with representatives from observer states. Climate change was of course high on the agenda this year, but seal hunting and shipping were also main issues of debate.

The Arctic Council was established by the Ottawa Declaration in 1996, and its main goal is to promote high-level multilateral dialogue on the environment, sustainable development, and climate change in the Arctic.

Accomplishments

The Arctic Council (AC) issued the Tromsø Declaration as a summary of the work of the two-day conference.

• Climate Change in the Arctic: The AC noted the increasing rate of melting in the Arctic and thus underscored the commitment of all AC members to reaching an international agreement in Copenhagen in December. They also discussed more immediate measures that could be taken, such as combatting methane emissions by working with the Methane to Markets Partnership.

• International Polar Year and its Legacy: The AC encouraged further international scientific cooperation even though the IPY has concluded. Projects like the Sustaining Arctic Observing Networks will continue work in this vein.

• Arctic Marine Environment: This section mostly focuses on shipping. As such, the AC approved the Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment, a document which discusses possible future scenarios in the Arctic based on two variables: governance stability and demand for resource and trade. The AC is also committed to carrying out more work on the creation of an international search and rescue operation force.

• Human Health and Human Development: The AC pointed out the risks from the environment facing Arctic residents, such as transnational pollution and its harmful effect on breastfeeding babies. The document also highlighted the importance of education in the region. The AC briefly mentioned the University of the Arctic, an interesting educational network between universities located in the High North. Students enrolled in these universities often focus their studies on sustainable development and participate in the north2north exchange program between the various Arctic universities.

• Energy: While recognizing that oil and energy can “contribute to sustainable development in the region,” more work needs to be done in reducing environmental risk. The AC also welcomed increased research into renewable energy in the Arctic.

• Contaminants: The AC touched upon the need for more international controls over certain contaminants in the Arctic that are currently unregulated. The AC also welcomed the creation of a new steering group to address the specific concerns of indigenous people in relation to contaminants.

• Biodiversity: The AC underscored the importance of programs such as the Arctic Biodiversity Assessment and the Circumpolar Biodiversity Monitoring Programme and encouraged further research on species in the Arctic like polar bears. The AC also made note of the unique contributions the Inuit can make in regards to conservation and species management.

• Administration and Organization of the Arctic Council: A new series of meetings at the deputy ministerial will take place, giving the Arctic Council greater political clout.

At the end of the meeting, Norway passed the chairmanship to Denmark, who will head the Arctic Council through 2009 and host the next ministerial meeting in 2011.

Russia

Russian FM Lavrov next to the President of the Norwegian Saami Parliament. © Jesper Hansen

Following the conference, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov denied that Russia is building up its forces in the Arctic. He remarked, “We [Russia] are not planning to increase our military presence in the Arctic and to deploy armed forces there,” - a statement that is somewhat at odds with the Russian National Security Council’s plan for Arctic development through 2020. That document outlined Russia’s plans to beef up its military capabilities in the Arctic, but Lavrov said that these were just measures that “provide for strengthening the potential of the coast guard.” Russia seems to be papering over its aggressive development strategy with diplomatic niceties.

Inuit

The Inuit were not so happy with the convening of the Arctic Council. On Tuesday, a day before the meeting began, the Inuit Circumpolar Council released a declaration on Arctic sovereignty. In the document, ICC Chair Patricia Cochran is quoted as saying,

“Our declaration addresses some of these questions from the position of a people who know the Arctic intimately. We have lived here for thousands and thousands of years and by making this declaration, we are saying to those who want to use Inuit Nunaat for their own purposes, you must talk to us and respect our rights.”

However, the declaration noted that it is

“not an Inuit Nunaat declaration of independence, but rather a statement of who we are, what we stand for, and on what terms we are prepared to work together with others.”

The Inuit have long felt excluded from debates on the future of the Arctic. In recent years, they have been included more often in summits and debates such as at last year’s Arctic Council Meeting in Greenland, yet mostly as a token presence. All the same, governments like Canada’s rely on their presence in the northernmost reaches of the country as a foundation for their sovereignty arguments. In the 1950s, many Inuits were forced from their ancestral homes to found new settlements in the High North in order to bolster Canada’s claims over the area.

Non-Arctic States

The Arctic Council denied permanent observer membership to the EU, China, Italy, and South Korea, due to a dispute between Canada and the EU on seal hunting. Brussels is expected to place a ban on seal products, a move that has angered Canada, which claims the seal hunt is sustainable and not cruel. Canada believes that a ban would inevitably lower demand for seal pelts and harm the Inuit economy, even though the EU would put an exception on indigenous hunting. Denmark is also opposed to EU plans, since seal hunting forms a large part of the Inuit economy in Greenland. And while Norway engages in seal hunting, ththe country ey actually favored EU accession due to the close ties between the two over the issue of oil and gas resources. The EU is looking to Norway to supply more of its energy needs as Russia becomes a less reliable provider.

Favoring multilateralism, Norwegian Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Støre observed, “Norway shares that view [on the seal ban] with Canada. But for Norway, that’s yet another reason to invite the observers in.”

Canadian Foreign Minister Lawrence Cannon skirted the issue of the seal hunt when commenting on the Arctic Coucil’s rejection of the EU membership bid. He said,

“Canada doesn’t feel that the European Union, at this stage, has the required sensitivity to be able to acknowledge the Arctic Council, as well as its membership, and so therefore I’m opposed to it… I see no reason why… they should be a permanent member on the Arctic Council”

Current permanent observers are Britain, France, the Netherlands, Poland and Spain. Since the EU, China, Italy, and South Korea are only ad-hoc observers, their presence must be re-accepted at each meeting.

News Links

Pan-Arctic Inuit council wants more say in sovereignty, Canada.com

Russia against increasing military presence in Arctic, RIA Novosti

Norway passed the chairmanship to Denmark.

Arctic Council rejects EU’s observer application, EUObserver