The Shape of the Table, the Shape of the Arctic

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. …