22 Northern Public Affairs, September 2013

IN CONVERSATION
Professor John English
Oor citr, )rolc Sooio, / oit/ Prfr )/o Eoli/ ooot /i oo o/,
Ice and Water: Politics, Peoples, and the Arctic Council. It will be published
o, Jllo Loo ooc io tr O.tor 8, !013
J
erald Sabin: Your new book, Ice and Wa-
ter, comes out in October. In the book,
you argue that Canadas relationship to the
Arctic Council under Prime Minister Ste-
phen Harper has shifted considerably since
the 1990s. Can you take us back to the begin-
ning of the Council and to how it emerged?
John English: The Arctic Council starts with the last
years ol the Colo War. I creoit |lormer Soviet Union
President Mikhail] Gorbachev with giving the ini-
tiative for the Arctic Council by talking in October
1987 about an Arctic zone ol peace, about open-
ing up the Arctic more widely, and about contact
between Arctic states being essential. It immeoiately
hao an impact. In NATO Heaoquarters ano else-
where this was treated skeptically not suprisingly,
given the history. But the Iinns took up Gorbachev`s
idea and proposed an Arctic environmental organi-
zation ol some kino or another. It was very vague at
the start.
That was the Arctic Environmental Protec-
tion Strategy (AEPS), a precursor to the Arc-
tic Council. What was Canadas position on
this Arctic zone of peace and the Finnish
proposal?
The Canadians were thrown off course by the end
ol the Colo War. Our Delence Department`s 1987
White Paper was a very hard lined and included
apropos the Arctic nuclear submarines, which
would be in the North to watch the other Soviet
ano American submarines. This was going to be
our commitment to an intensineo Colo War, which
seemeo to be the way things were going since 198!.
Then there was this suooen change.
The Canadians were surprised by the Finnish
initiative. The Iinnish proposal was unoerstanoable,
because the Finns wanted every possible opportu-
nity to bring the Soviet Union out of what it had
been. What the Iinns was proposeo an environmen-
tal agency nothing about security, nothing about
social concerns, and nothing about the human ele-
ment ol the Arctic.
The Canadians had been very active in the
1980s in the North with an Arctic environmental
strategy ol their own. Much ol this work hao been
done in the Department of Indian and Northern
Development ,DIAND,. When the Canaoians saw
|the Iinnish proposal|, they saw it as an opportunity.
Canada had been doing a lot of international work
on pollutants. The notion was that the Arctic was
a sink that attracted pollutants from the rest of the
world, so the AEPS was timely from the Canadian
point ol view.
1
How did the AEPS transform into the Arctic
Council as we know it today?
In 1982, |Frime Minister Brian| Mulroney hao gone
to the Arctic ano proposeo an Arctic Council ol
some kino. Again, he was very vague about it. In
Canada, a group of people took up this challenge to
lorm an international Arctic organization. A gath-
ering of Arctic nations had been proposed as ear-
ly as the 1970s by Maxwell Cohen a Canadian
lawyer of great eminence and our most prominent
international lawyer at the time. He proposeo to
the Canadian Institute of International Affairs that
something like this be createo. At University ol Ot-
tawas Faculty of Law, Donat Pharand had proposed
an Arctic treaty similar to the Antarctic treaty dating
lrom the 190s. So, these ioeas were in the air ano
Canaoians were central to the oiscussion.
Conferences took place here in Toronto, funded
mainly by the Walter and Duncan Gordon Founda-
tion a foundation which has been long active in
the North ano a special Northern locus. They paio
lor the setting up ol an Arctic Council panel. Kyra
Montagu, who is a Gordon daughter, was especially
active in that respect. Iranklin Grilnths, the Univer-
sity ol Toronto prolessor, was to be the Chair. He
recognized right from the very start that it would be
impossible to have this group of Toronto academ-
ics and Tom Axworthy a former aide to [Prime
Eoli/` o/ oill o ooli/c io O.tor o, Jllo Loo (oo ioriot f Pooio Coooco,.
2! Northern Public Affairs, September 2013
Minister| Fierre Truoeau in the leao. This hao
to have more of a Northern focus and Northern
peoples hao to be renecteo in its composition ano
outlook.
Grilnths proposeo Rosemarie Kuptana lor the
position ol Co-Chair. Their initial interest was in
a zone ol peace ano the oemilitarization ol the
Arctic. During the 1980s, the Inuit Circumpolar
Conlerence ,ICC, were very active. Mary Simon
became especially prominent in the early meetings
|leaoing to the AEFS| as presioent ol the ICC. At
the Canadian meeting in Yellowknife in the lead up
to the signing of the AEPS, Mary intervened and
said that she was not going to sit at the side but that
she would sit at the table with the state representa-
tives. Irom that point on, |Inoigenous participation|
became a central matter lor oiscussion. She wrote to
the Swedish Foreign Minister and said that [Indige-
nous peoples| must be at the table. He took a long
time to answer her, as he consulted other delega-
tions. The Canaoian government supporteo her ano
[the Walter and Duncan Gordon Foundations] Arc-
tic Council panel took that up as a cause. Graoually,
the concept developed of permanent participants by
about 1991-1992.
The AEPS was signed in 1991. Was Canada
sntisBod with thnt outcono, or did thoy wnnt
something more?
The Canadian government, after Mulroney made
this pledge for an Arctic Council, tried to develop
it. Canaoa wanteo it to be a comprehensive panel
to consioer all matters Arctic. In terms ol a treaty,
it was uncertain, but Canada did want an organiza-
tion and wanted it to go beyond the narrow environ-
mental locus ol the AEFS which was too scientinc
ano sterile. It oion`t have the people involveo.
The Arctic was different from Antarctica, which
hao no people. It was a oillerent composition. There
were clear sovereign states and clear cases of sov-
ereignty in the North. By 1991, |the AEFS| was
moving forward pretty quickly, but then it slowed
oramatically.
There were three principal reasons lor this. One
was the United States, who just did not like the Arc-
tic Council ioea. They oon`t really see themselves
as an Arctic nation. They thought this coulo inter-
lere with American loreign policy. They also oion`t
like the idea, in this post-Cold War era, of setting
up new international organizations as it was just too
nuio. They were, it is lair to say, in opposition to an
Arctic Council. Secono, within Canaoa itsell, those
were the years ol our constitutional oebates. We lost
our locus. The government oion`t want to push it.
The Arctic Council panel was upset with this. Ano
the third reason was the position of our Indigenous
peoples. The Canaoian government supporteo them
as permanent participants. Not all parts ol govern-
ment oio, however. In Ioreign Allairs there was clear
doubt about whether we should have non-govern-
mental bodies or individuals at tables where states
were present. In other countries, Norway is olten
mentioneo, there was opposition to this ioea. Mary
Simon, lor example, recalls that opposition. Every-
thing ooesn`t move very lar.
How was this inertia overcome?
Well, the Liberals come to power in 1993. They
talked about a new Northern foreign policy and had
promiseo a new Circumpolar Ambassaoor. This was
one of their pledges that they had made before the
election campaign. They appointeo Mary Simon as
their nrst Circumpolar Ambassaoor, ano the specinc
instructions for her were to create the Arctic Coun-
cil. It was a bipartisan issue the Liberals support-
eo this ano oion`t have opposition.
Ano it was part ol the mooo ol the time. The
worlo was changing lunoamentally. The Uniteo Na-
tions was more important than ever. There was talk
ol something calleo human security oevelopeo by
the United Nations a security beyond the bound-
aries ol the state ano concern lor inoiviouals. This
was something picked up especially by Lloyd Ax-
worthy when he became Minister of Foreign Affairs
in 199o. This was all heighteneo by the various ca-
tastrophes of the time, whether it Somalia, Rwanda,
or the lormer Yugoslavia. How can we get beyono
state sovereignty, as Axworthy woulo olten say.
So, in 1996 when Axworthy came, [Prime Min-
ister Jean] Chrtien met [President Bill] Clinton and
proposeo the Arctic Council again. This became part
ol Axworthy`s human security initiative. So there is
no ooubt that it was the Canaoians who pusheo it.
The United States was not interested, and proba-
bly opposeo most ol the time. Ano in Europe itsell,
the Norwegians had organized a European barrens
council, which was very active and fairly success-
lul in oealing with human security questions. The
AEPS had been created too, and the Americans said
somewhat justinably that we shoulo see how these
things work belore we go lurther. But the Canaoians
by this point had built up momentum, appointed a
Circumpolar Ambassador with an Arctic Council
mandate, and beyond that, there was strong support
lrom Inoigenous peoples.
25 Northern Public Affairs, September 2013
How did Indigenous peoples propel the cre-
ation of the Arctic Council?
What was very signincant was the role playeo by In-
oigenous peoples themselves. They came to take up
the creation ol an Arctic Council as their cause. Not
at the very nrst, when it seemeo like they were ex-
cluoeo. But it appeareo to them by 1992-199!, that
this was a real opportunity.
This is an organization that would never have
happened if the Inuit Circumpolar Council had not
taken the leao. So, Inoigenous people, they creat-
eo the Arctic Council. You oo get a sense now that
others have taken it over, and probably pushing the
direction, but Indigenous peoples are still there and
have a prominent place at the table.
The Arctic Council was eventually established
unoer the Ottawa Declaration in 199o. The Liberal
government continued to support the work of the
Council throughout that time, appointing Jack An-
awak as Circumpolar Ambassaoor in 2003. In 200o,
the Conservatives were electeo to their nrst minority
government, and they promptly axed the position
ol Circumpolar Ambassaoor. How oio changes in
Canadas foreign policy under Prime Minister Ste-
phen Harper affect the Arctic Council and the work
it was doing?
One gets the sense that when they came into
olnce they haon`t thought very much about it. The
Conservatives hao thought a lot about the Arctic.
Prime Minister Harper had given a speech in 2005
that Arctic sovereignty was our principal concern
and we must defend it and rank it high in our de-
lence pronle. Seconoly, when he came into olnce
he attacked the American Ambassador about some
musings the Ambassador had on the Northwest Pas-
sage. So, it was clear that he was uninteresteo in the
Arctic, but that the Arctic Council oion`t really nt
ano the Arctic Ambassaoor was abolisheo. They
said that it didnt really give us very much, which
was quite an insult to Mary Simon and Jack Anawak
who hao been ooing it.
I think the Conservatives saw it as a Liberal ini-
tiative. I think it is lair to say that by 200o, the gov-
ernment itself had been less active in the Council
than it hao been in the 1990s. It was more ol our
game then, but a change came with 9/11 and so
much else. As one prominent Conservative tolo me,
they were told to call the Arctic Council the Mul-
roney Initiative which technically is true as Mul-
roney hao proposeo it nrst.
Well, you could say that the Conservative
Party has had a long relationship with the
North, predating even Diefenbakers North-
ern Vision. There has been a close relation-
ship between the Conservative Party, the
North, and political and economic develop-
ment. So, why wasnt the Arctic Council em-
braced? Was it just its Liberal origins or its
international outlook?
I think that was it, it was what surrounded the Arc-
tic Council. The human security rhetoric. The lact
that the Uniteo States hao opposeo it in 200!, when
the Arctic Council ran into trouble. What put the
Arctic Council on the map in the nrst part ol this
century was the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment.
It got into the question ol climate change. Climate
change was controversial with the Bush Administra-
tion and, quite frankly, controversial with the Harp-
er government when it came in too. So because ol
that mixture of things, it is not surprising that the
Conservatives oion`t have an interest in the Council.
Where the Harper government did show inter-
est was on the military sioe. It is a very high priority
for the Canadian Forces and incidents such as the
Russian nag planting at the North Fole. The para-
dox is that in the Arctic Council, Canada and Russia
are now often on the same side, such as vetoing the
participation of the EU because of its stance on fur
ano nsh. We`re also on the same sioe because both
have Arctic sea passages, and the other states dont
necessarily recognize their national rights in those
specinc passages.
So, why have the Conservatives embraced
tho Arctic Council nt this spociBc nonont in
its history?
Well, it`s the major game in town. By 2009-2010,
the Arctics prominence in international politics had
become so much more obvious and so much more
impossible to avoio. The neeo lor collaboration hao
become so much stronger. I mentioneo the incioent
ol Russia planting its nag in 2007. In response, the
Arctic coastal nations of which Canada is one
made a declaration saying that we dont need
a treaty, we can hanole this ourselves. We`re going
to move lorwaro by collaboration, not by connict.
The incioent ol the nag shoulo not be an inoication
that there is connict among us, rather we will stano
together, we will work together, and we will settle
things through what is the Arctic Council.
When the Arctic Council was being formed, the
Finns looked around and asked how many interna-
tional agreements have the Arctic as a prominent
part or have agreements that specincally cover Arc-
tic states? There was only one and it dealt with polar
bears. In all the others, the Arctic was a subset or a
clause like in the United Nations of Law of the Sea its
just a clause. So, there was a neeo to treat the Arctic
oistinctly.
Alter 2008, it became impossible to ignore the
Arctic lor all ol these states. The pressures towaros
collaboration were much greater because there were
threats lrom the outsioe. In 2010, Hillary Clinton
came to Ottawa and she blasted the Canadian gov-
ernment lor only having the coastal states there.
This was a great irony because it was her husbands
aoministration that hao opposeo the Arctic Council.
At Kiruna, non-Arctic states like China, In-
dia, and Japan were made permanent ob-
servers. How has the Council changed in the
past few years?
The Scandinavians have Chaired the Arctic Coun-
cil recently, and as they always manage to do, they
made it a very effective organization that started to
matter more. When I was at Kiruna this year, one
of the veteran delegates from the Arctic Athabaskan
Professor John English
27 Northern Public Affairs, September 2013
Council said the Council really started to change
when the Scanoinavians took over. It hao been so
much more ol a talk shop belore that. Now, you see
things getting done, such as search and rescue agree-
ments. There is a lot going on behino the scenes.
The meetings used to be very small and now
they are massive. The New York Times sent a corre-
spondent! You know, it is only the Canadian news-
papers that oion`t seno any corresponoents. All ol
the major European outlets were there. Even John
Kerry was there. Until Hillary Clinton came, the
US Secretary of State never attended the ministe-
rial meetings. Irankly, when the Arctic Council was
formed, the only foreign minister who was there was
Lloyo Axworthy. It has become a much more serious
organization.
At Kiruna every country, bar Iceland because
ol an election, hao their loreign minister there. That
includes [John] Kerry and [Russian Foreign Min-
ister Sergei] Lavrov, and the Scandinavian foreign
ministers. It was Chaireo by Carl Bilot, a lormer
Prime Minister of Sweden and one of the great in-
ternational diplomats of our time in the former Yu-
goslavia. He is a man ol tremenoous weight he`ll
get all his phone calls answered if he calls any capi-
tal in the worlo. So, this is an organization that has
suddenly moved into the major league because the
playing nelo has changeo so oramatically. I woulon`t
be surprised if in the next two or three years it
depends on external circumstances to see leaders
coming together ol the Arctic Nations.
Before Kiruna, the outstanding issue was what
to oo about the observers. That touches on our In-
oigenous peoples ano permanent participants. They
had a sense that if you admit observers of the size
and weight of China, it will affect the operations of
the Council. Having hao some oiscussion with the
permanent participants, there was that sense, but
there was a recognition that, as the Arctic becomes
increasingly signincant in international politics, to
have a Chinese voice vetoed or absent would be
very oilncult. There was an acceptance, with a small
amount ol reluctance, to bring China into it.
In his lntost cnbinot shuIBo, tho Prino Min-
ister moved Leona Aglukkaq from Health to
the Environment. What do you make of that?
I think it is interesting that she was moved to Envi-
ronment. In her speech at Kiruna, the Canaoians
emphasized what one could call domestic matters
how people live in the North. Whereas Kerry,
for example, talked almost exclusively about climate
change. There was a huge oillerence there. She nev-
er mentioned climate change once, he mentioned
it continuously. It`s not that she`s oenying there are
changes, but she`s saying let`s locus on the people.
Ano that is within the Canaoian traoition.
Having said that, a lot of what the Arctic Coun-
cil ooes is becoming very high politics. The other
representatives at the Council are representatives of
Ioreign Olnces ano Ioreign Ministries. The lact that
Aglukkaq was in health meant that her domestic re-
sponsibilities were pretty far from an Arctic perspec-
tive. In Environment, well it is very clear that the
environment in the Arctic is being allecteo. Even the
oil companies are saying that its being affected
they can orill more easily because the ice is receoing.
In Environment shell have a more direct relation-
ship to Arctic issues.
Why should Northerners be keeping their
eyes on the Arctic Council?
They should be keeping their eyes on the Council
because it will allect how they live. It is a very simple
answer. The Arctic Climate Impact Assessment hao
a huge impact on the way the Arctic was perceived
as a canary in the mine shalt. Search ano rescue co-
ordination has a direct impact on individuals in the
Arctic ano I oo mean inoiviouals.
I was impressed by the buzz at the side of the
meetings in Kiruna. It useo to be, I was tolo, that
the meetings were brief and low-level affairs among
people without the capacity to make oecisions. Now
people come there, including business people trying
to sell things, and it is clearly a place where some-
thing is happening. That kino ol happening is going
to affect how people live on the ground in Nunavut,
the Northwest Territories, ano elsewhere. Ano it is
the only organization I can think of which has a sig-
nincant presence ol non-state actors Inoigenous
peoples at the table. It was the nrst, ano as Lloyo
Axworthy said in 1996 when it was founded, this will
be a preceoent, ano that may well be.
John English is a professor of history at the University of
Waterloo and a former MP. He is the author of the acclaimed
to-.loo oiro/, f Pirr Ellitt Trocoo, o/i./ .o-
prises Citizen of the World: The Life of Pierre Elliott
Truoeau, 1919-19o8 and the award-winning Just Watch
Me: The Lile ol Fierre Elliott Truoeau, 19o8-2000.
Footnotes
1. Negotiations began lor the AEFS in 1989. It was signeo
by Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, the So-
viet Union, Sweoen, ano the Uniteo States in 1991.
SWEDEN
T/ o/ f Ioo/oi rf.tio io lo/ Loctoor.
P
h
o
t
o

c
r
e
d
i
t
:

F
r
e
d
r
i
k

B
r
o
m
a
n
/
i
m
a
g
e
b
a
n
k
.
s
w
e
d
e
n
.
s
e