Search

This essay represents the penultimate chapter of a volume that focuses on change in the Arctic and the challenges and opportunities for conducting research within the context of NordForsk’s Responsible Development of the Arctic initiative. It provides both a backward glance at the needs that inspired this undertaking and seeks to offer some forward-looking ideas and suggestions as to the direction for future similarly-directed research efforts within the North. It gives attention to the important roles which assessment and evaluation have played in the evolution of the NordForsk project and focuses attention on the specific work of the Scientific Advisory Board (SAB) within this context. It discusses some of the challenges the SAB has encountered in conducting its work. Comparisons are also made with similar efforts at assessment and evaluation conducted by other funders of Arctic research. Views are also presented in this essay on the nature of integrated assessment within large and complex undertakings like the Responsible Development of the Arctic. Finally, a discussion is offered concerning where the future of interdisciplinary and cross-disciplinary scientific research in the Arctic may be headed and the requirements it must embrace in order to be successful.

This final chapter of the book provides a summary of the key findings and perspectives that the several contributing authors to the volume offer regarding Nordic perspectives on the responsible development of the Arctic. It presents these within a framework of five interrelated questions. The first of these is: How are Nordic interests and concerns regarding the Arctic being addressed by the efforts of these four NordForsk-sponsored NCoEs? The second one is: What innovative conceptual and methodological insights have emerged from their efforts? The third is dual in character: What have been some of the advantages secured in promoting interdisciplinary research and the use of multi-disciplinary teams of researchers and what are some of the limitations and constraints in their use? The fourth question focuses on: How can participatory bridges be built between researchers and local and indigenous communities? Fifth and finally, the question is addressed regarding: What are to be some of the future directions for policy development in the North that can emerge from such research efforts? The latter concern focuses our attention back on the issue of what are the necessary pathways to action that lay at the heart of all of these inquiries.

This chapter provides a brief overview of the need for leadership in the contemporary Arctic. It considers how the process of Arctic governance has evolved over the past quarter century and how the Arctic Council has become a central actor in this endeavor. It looks at how recent Arctic Council Chairmanships have played significant roles in developing a response to pressing Arctic concerns. It notes, however, that the precise means by which successive chairs of the organization have advanced its work has rarely been examined or compared. This is the overall focus of this volume. Its individual chapter inquiries are noted and briefly summarized.

This final chapter of the volume provides a summary of the key findings and insights that the several contributing authors to the volume offer regarding leadership within the Arctic Council. It presents these within the framework of five interrelated questions. The first of these is what have we learned about the particular contributions of the most recent occupants of the Chair? The second one is, how should we evaluate their efforts? The third is dual in character: What is the overall impact of the “powers of the chair” and what constraints limit their application? The fourth question focuses on what are the “best practices” that can be taken away from this consideration of organizational leadership. The fifth question relates to what are the type of challenges that future Arctic Council Chairs are likely to encounter and how the organization will have to evolve if it is to continue to provide leadership for the North?

For all of our pressing our noses up against the glass of American prosperity and achievement, we cherish our separateness—our unassuming civility, our gift of irony and understatement in a world o...

Some 40 years ago the shape of the table in Paris was a major obstacle to negotiations that promised to bring an end to the Vietnam War. The combatants could not agree on which parties were entitled to be represented at the peace talks or the appropriate design of the furniture that would facilitate their discussions. Then, as now, the diplomats knew that those who had prime access to the table were likely to be the chief beneficiaries of the negotiations. A seat at the table would allow a party's particular concerns to be voiced and framed in a manner consistent with its overall understanding of the issues at stake. It also meant that each party represented at the table would be acknowledged to have an equally significant role in implementing any agreement reached.To a large degree, the current status of Arctic negotiations resembles much of what was going in Paris four decades ago. The various parties interested in the future of the region cannot seem to agree who should be invited to the negotiations, who should sit prominently at the table, and who should have the responsibility for identifying the key issues at stake and the mechanisms for resolving potential conflicts between the parties. As the recent diplomatic discussions in Chelsea, Quebec, suggest, the path toward securing a framework for future Arctic negotiations may be as complicated as that which confronted the American and Vietnamese negotiators.1One might have thought that such a diplomatic impasse would be an unlikely situation for regional discussions that, until recently, had been held up as a model of international creativity and indusiveness. The initial spurt of Arctic negotiations that coincided with the end of the Cold War and the rise of the Arctic Council had convinced many observers that a new spirit of circumpolar collaboration and cooperation was the dominant theme in regional relations. Efforts to address important environmental challenges in the north brought on by global climate change seemed to be on the upswing. So too were initiatives designed to give the peoples who lived in the region greater representation and a larger voice in determining their own futures within the Arctic.2Yet despite such progress, the most recent race for resources within the Arctic raises some serious questions as to whether the international community can truly forge a consensus on how to establish an effective international governmental framework for the region.3 What appears to be emerging are two alternative positions derived from different views on the priority concerns of the region as well as the breadth of the community that should address them. Our ability to reconcile these alternative stances in the coming decade may very well determine whether the Arctic can be a true zone of cooperation or one that will succumb to the traditional pattern of contention and conflict seen in other areas of the globe.THE SHAPE OF THE ARCTIC AS SEEN FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE ARCTIC COUNCILUntil quite recently, most analysts of contemporary Arctic diplomacy had assumed that the framework established with the creation of the Arctic Coundl in 1996 would provide the defining context for aU future discussions. This framework was characterized by five agreed-upon principles: inclusiveness, multilateralism, innovation, multidimensionality, and transparency. These principles were intended to direct and animate aU ofthe coundl's undertakings and direct discussion of northern needs and priorities.4The Arctic Coundl was created with the idea that aU who had interests in the region should have a seat at the table and a voice in aU relevant discussions. This principle of inclusiveness was central to the makeup of the organization. In addition to membership being granted to the traditional nation-states whose governments claimed jurisdiction over the lands and waters ofthe region (the "permanent members"), representation was accorded from the outset to the several indigenous peoples who had lived in the Arctic for millennia as "permanent representatives. …

Until recently, the Arctic had never been considered to be a central concern of much of the global community. Cold, remote, and distant, the region has lingered on the margins of the consciousness of most national leaders and their citizenry for many centuries. A supposedly “empty land,” the Arctic remained of little interest to all except for the hardiest of explorers, scientists, and adventurers well into the twentieth century. Their experiences in confronting the unknown dangers and multiple challenges of the Far North became part of a popularized vision of the area that focused on polar bears, icebergs, and the aurora borealis (Emmerson 2010).

As noted in the previous chapter, the coming of the Swedish Chairmanship of the Arctic Council was not greeted with great excitement or fanfare by many either within or without the country. In several respects, this new leadership role was seen by most as a long-neglected responsibility that Sweden could no longer postpone. Nonetheless, having belatedly agreed to assume this assignment, Stockholm set out to make the best of what was initially viewed by some as being more of a burden than a crowning achievement of Swedish diplomacy. The country’s foreign policy establishment quickly went to work to develop its program for action and to assemble a supporting staff that could effectively advance its identified goals and objectives.

From a certain vantage point, the prospect of Sweden taking on a leadership role in the Arctic Council seemed quite appropriate. In the minds of many outside observers, the country seemed intimately associated with the prevailing popular imagery of the Arctic. It had vast areas of sparsely populated territory in its north that features rugged topography and a challenging climate. The aurora borealis appeared regularly in its winter skies and the iconic reindeer and Arctic fox existed in abundance across its northernmost lands. The world-famous Ice Hotel was to be found in Swedish Norrland and the nation was known for a variety of winter sports competitions and champions. Beneath this popular culture veneer, there also existed a long-established history of Swedish Arctic science and exploration. The famous Swedish biologist Carl Linnaeus had traveled through his country’s remote northern regions in the early eighteenth century documenting and classifying its flora and fauna. A century later, the equally renowned Swedish explorer, Adolf Erik Nordenskjold, had led the famous Vega expedition that first charted the Northern Sea Route along the Arctic coasts of Russia.

After two years of sustained commitment and focused effort, the leadership term for Sweden at the head of the Arctic Council had come to a conclusion. In the wake of the excitement and uncertainty of the Kiruna Ministerial Meeting, the Leadership Group had a brief opportunity to rest and relax a bit knowing that their day-to-day supervision of the work of the body was no longer required. The Canadians were now in charge and it would be up to them to move forward their own agenda for the organization. This period of relative calm allowed all who had been involved in advancing the Swedish Chairmanship Programme to reflect a bit on what had been their successes and failures over the period. In many respects this tallying of the pluses and minuses of the group’s efforts was reflective of a characteristic Swedish exercise in self-examination and critique. After two years of struggle and lingering doubt, the question remained: Had the undertaking been a success? Did the domestic and external audiences feel that their work had been adequate? Had they measured up? Were the requirements of being duktig fulfilled?

Having reviewed the accomplishments of the recent Swedish Chairmanship of the Arctic Council, it seems appropriate now to expand our vision a bit wider to examine the future prospects of both the Arctic and the chief international organization that seeks to address its needs. This final chapter of the book endeavors to address both matters. It first turns its attention to consider the variety of problems and issues that the circumpolar world must confront over the coming decades. Environmental, economic, social, and political in nature, many of these challenges will not be easily resolved over a short period of time. Several of these major problems have their roots both within the changing character of the Arctic as well as in the evolving features of the international system. Creating an effective response to these multiple concerns will demand the active involvement and ongoing commitment of residents, researchers, and political leaders from both the Arctic region and the wider global community. It will also require that they be provided with enhanced knowledge and understanding of the region if their undertakings are to be successful over the long term.

Exploring the growing prominence of the Arctic and the accompanying efforts to provide the basis for consensus building and governance for this evolving area is no small undertaking. Like the region itself, the topics of concern and the questions to be addressed are truly broad and complex in nature. In an attempt to come to grips with them, it seems useful to place some of these matters within an analytical framework—outlining what is already known about the dimensions of the issues concerned and the several responses that have been given to them. In this manner, the extent of the various challenges confronting the Swedish Chairmanship of the Arctic Council can be better understood and appreciated. It seems also important to place this entire discussion within the context of the current debate on the theory and practice of international relations and foreign policy. In this way, developments in the Arctic can be assessed and compared with other undertakings of multilateral diplomacy elsewhere in the global community of today.

Canada needs to bring a comprehensive northern dimension to its foreign policy. To be effective, the new policy must be an integral part of Canada's broader foreign policy, and must be reinforced by domestic policies. The Northern Dimension of Canada's Foreign Policy (2000) A northern foreign policy? We don't do north in our foreign policy-- unless you're talking about relations with the polar bears, walrus or caribou. Unattributed foreign policy advisor to President George W. Bush For many observers of Canadian-American affairs it was a bit of a surprise to find that the first problem to emerge in the bilateral relationship following the election of the new Harper government was related to the North. Rather than being a trade issue linked to softwood lumber or a border security concern tied to differing national immigration regulations, it was the question of Arctic sovereignty that was to disrupt briefly the promise of renewed positive relations between the two countries. In late January of 2006, the American ambassador to Canada, David Wilkins, appeared to raise questions in a speech to a Canadian audience about Ottawa's need to exert complete control over its northern lands and waters. The newly-elected Canadian prime minister, Stephen Harper, was forced to make a quick response, offering the opinion that Arctic sovereignty was indeed an important concern for Canadians and that it would be a foreign policy priority for his new government. He further indicated that the American ambassador might wish to refrain from making further comments on the matter (Galloway 2006). What puzzled many observers on both sides of the border concerning this brief, heated exchange was why either Canadian or American interests in the Arctic should be given such attention. Neither country had made the North an issue of prominent concern in their mutual relations for several years. Nor had either country appeared to devote much attention to the North in its overall foreign policy behavior. The idea that Canada and the United States might have different and contending approaches to their international relations in the North was a new idea to many. For those who had been carefully following the development of Canadian and American foreign policies in the North over the past several decades, however, such a sudden diplomatic outburst was not totally unexpected. The two countries did, in fact, have somewhat different visions of their roles in the North and their contributions to current circumpolar diplomacy. While there had been a good deal of common cause between Ottawa and Washington in their dealings in the North prior to the end of the Cold War, the two countries had begun to diverge in their attitudes and approaches to the region since the decline of that international system. It. might be important, some suggested, that these differences be detailed. The Nature of the Inquiry This essay discusses the problems that both Canada and the United States have faced over the past several decades in envisioning and articulating a northern dimension to their respective foreign policies. As noted above, both countries have suffered from a certain reluctance to consider the North as an important component of their foreign relations and have only belatedly begun to look at themselves as circumpolar states. Nonetheless, northern issues and concerns have become increasingly visible features of both Canada's and the United States' dealings with other members of the global community and in their relations with one another. The essay begins by providing a historical overview of the United States' and Canada's interests in the North over the past century It considers the political, economic, social, and strategic concerns that have driven each country to become involved in the region. Here, attention is focused on the evolution of their interests from exploration and establishment of sovereignty in the North to economic exploitation, strategic defense, and ultimately international cooperation. …

Over the past several years, the Arctic has emerged as a region of growing concern to the international community as a result of the impacts of climate change and globalization in this once remote area. Increasing numbers of scholars and residents of the region believe that some framework for governance in the Arctic is now required to address these and other pressing challenges. This is not, however, an easy undertaking. The process of governance is a multifaceted effort. The Arctic Council, established in 1996, has functioned until now as the primary body for addressing regional concerns and formulating efforts at collective action. This article examines the multiple questions posed by any undertaking of governance in the Arctic. It reviews the ways in which the Arctic Council has sought to respond to each of these over the past 18 years and provides an assessment of its undertakings. The article also considers what should be the guiding principles around which all future governance efforts should be crafted and discusses how such an initiative is central to the future evolution of the region.

Despite the fact that both Canada and the United States are North American countries, neither state has whole-heartedly embraced the ‘North’ as the key, defining element of its national identity or foreign policy. The United States as a trend-setting, global power has been hesitant to constrain its image or interests to any geographical reference point. Canada, in recent years, has done more to address elements of the ‘northerners’ of its national character and approach to foreign relations, but it has done so tentatively and without a lasting sense of commitment. As more than one observer has noted, Canada has discovered its own northern dimension rather belatedly and without great enthusiasm. The United States, for its part, has yet to discover it.

Over the course of the past three decades there has been a steady expansion of opportunities for higher education within the areas of the circumpolar north. Responding in part to broad global trends associated with the growth and development of the ‘new information age’, the governments of the Nordic countries, Canada, the United States and Russia have all sought to provide their northern communities with the capabilities to better adapt themselves to the challenges of this new reality. In so doing, they have contributed to the creation of new institutions of advanced education, the expansion of curricula and degree offerings and the sponsorship of both applied and general research in these northern areas. Often these governments have portrayed the future development of their northern regions as being directly linked to the effective operation of these northern universities (Lipponen, 1997).

(1978). THE “PROBLEM” OF IMMIGRATION: THE CONTINUING PRESENCE OF THE STRANGER WITHIN OUR GATES. American Review of Canadian Studies: Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 116-133.