As the Arctic heats up, diplomatic meetings are getting rather frosty. You might have missed this, but Canada got a public rebuke from the U.S. yesterday over Arctic policy. From the Voice of America:

On Monday, Canada hosted a meeting of foreign ministers from five countries with Arctic coastlines for talks on maritime boundaries, disaster response and other issues. The U.S. and Canada were joined by Denmark, Norway and Russia.

But other countries with Arctic interests – Finland, Iceland and Sweden – as well as northern indigenous groups were not invited.

Clinton said in remarks to the meeting that significant international discussions on Arctic issues should include those who have legitimate interests in the region. She said she hopes the Arctic will always showcase the ability to work together, not create new divisions.

Canada, who had invited only those countries with Arctic coastlines, irked Iceland, Sweden and Finland–who think that Arctic decisions need to be made by the 8 state Arctic Council. The Inuit were also upset. So the U.S. issued Canada a public rebuke–the first since the run-up to the Gulf War.

And today, Canada confirmed it was going to leave Afghanistan.

Other arguments aside, the Arctic debate is getting serious, and, given that the five participants have plans to operate 66 ice-ready, combatants, the time to talk is now–even if a few non-territorial claiming stakeholders are left out–after all, Iceland, Sweden and Finland won’t be fighting over places like, oh, Hans Island

And then, to boot, where does one draw the line? If the Arctic Council participates, why shouldn’t China be allowed to participate? I mean, they might feel they have “legitimate interests”:

Earlier this month, a Chinese rear-admiral asserted that the Arctic belongs to all peoples. He was correct — if only with respect to the central Arctic Ocean where the water and sea-ice form part of the high seas and an area of ocean floor beyond the continental shelves of the five coastal states is part of the “common heritage of mankind.”

I don’t understand the goals here. Why are we making a big stink over this diplomatic meeting? Sometimes it’s OK to have an exclusive club…and with Arctic Claims being seen as a basis for support of China’s claims in the East and South China seas, the five “Arctic-owning” nations need to talk far more than argue. A lot of things ride on getting this right.

Subscribe to NEXTNAVY.COM




Posted by Defense Springboard in Coast Guard, Foreign Policy, Maritime Security, Navy
Tags:

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

  • baltus

    I certainly see both points, however the Chinese should really butt out OR perhaps taking their lead U.S., Europe & Padre Island should expect to join the Asia Pacific Trade Council. Asia is part of the world after all… That’s a tad bit irksome.
    .
    Finland, Sweden & Iceland will obviosuly not have any military involvement, but it may just benefit the Canadians & U.S. to seat them at the kiddies table to listen, and be aware for their own strategic, & economic governance. Perhaps that would help them in the management of their fishing fleets relative to the 66 combatant vessel’s, but most importantly fisherman are in constant radio-contact making them definitely able to play a role as a network in civil/military observation AND intelligence, a reason’s for them to be on hand, so it would seem?

    Help a civilian better understand why not, my highest rank achieved was Military Brat.

2014 Information Domination Essay Contest
7ads6x98y