Arctic Council and India - Issues

Tauseef & Others

Relevant Issues related to Arctic Council and India
The Arctic Council was established in 1996 (Ottawa Declaration). It has eight original members i.e
Canada, the US, Russia, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark and Iceland and six permanent
participant organizations and many observers. Originally, the councils main focus was to address
environmental issues and the concerns of the indigenous people in the region. But in recent years,
rapid melting of the Arctic ice due to global warming, opening of the shorter Arctic sea route for
shipping between the Atlantic and the Pacific Oceans during summer months and the prospects of
large-scale hydrocarbons in the Arctic sea has led to cold rush and changed the complexion of the
region.
Recently few countries were given observer status along with India. Other countries that joined
India as Observers were China, Japan, South Korea, Singapore and Italy. The United Kingdom,
France, Germany, Poland, Spain and the Netherlands are already Observers.
Criteria for Observer Status:
(i) Recognize the sovereign rights of Arctic states.
(ii) Recognize that the Law of the Sea and the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea constitute the
legal basis and the legal framework within which the Arctic will be managed.
(iii) Respect indigenous peoples, local cultures and traditions; and
(iv) Be able to contribute to the work of the Arctic Council.
Now, when India got the observer status, there were criticism awaiting and followed too.
Why and what of criticism?
In accepting to abide by these criteria, India has recognized the territorial jurisdiction and sovereign
rights of the Arctic littoral states and hence their pre-eminent and even pre-emptive role over the
Arctic zone. The acceptance of the Law of the Sea as the governing instrument for the Arctic also
implies that the extension of jurisdiction over the continental shelf as well as over maritime passage
and the resources of the ocean space will lie with the littoral states. So the voices are against such
acceptance and in favor of the concept of Global Common.
What is Global Common then?
Global commons is a term typically used to describe international, supranational, and global
resource domains in which common-pool resources are found. Global commons include the earths
shared natural resources, such as the deep oceans, the atmosphere, outer space and the Northern
and Southern Polar regions, the Antarctica in particular. Cyberspace may also meet the definition of
a global commons.
Many opposed the Arctic council by terming Arctic as GC and when India got Observer status the
critics lamented India because of its abiding the criteria of council and defeating the purpose of GC.
Critical Assessment of Arctic Council:
The Arctic has virtually become the inland water space of the five coastal states Russia, Norway,
Denmark, Canada and the United States. India has, therefore, no more room to argue that the region
be treated in the same manner as the Antarctica. In the Antarctica Treaty of 1959, territorial claims
have been kept in abeyance in favor of a global commons approach, respecting the pristine nature of
the ice covered continent. The trends we see in the Arctic region may well come to pass in the
Antarctic as well. The claimant states could reasonably argue that just as the Arctic space is being
managed by the sovereign members of the Arctic Council, with well-defined norms and through
cooperation among both the littoral and user states, why could this not serve as a template for
Antarctica? Like the Arctic, the Antarctic, too, is a treasure house of resources. These are also being
unlocked by the steady melting of the continents ice cover.
Implications: Indian gain/loss and global gain/loss
The eight Arctic States have moved quickly to strengthen their claims on the Arctic sea region
surrounding the North Pole. What should ideally have been a global common like the Antarctic
barred from exportation by states is now almost an internal lake of the surrounding Arctic States. As
the arctic ice melts, the unseemly rush for the exploitation of the resources of the Arctic region has
begun in all earnest.
The accelerated melting of the ice in the Arctic will have implications for global climate as well as
politics, economy and transportation. It is no surprise that countries like China, situated faraway,
are keenly interested in the Arctic sea as they link it with their prosperity and security.
The Kiruna ministerial declaration brings out issues that are of immediate concern to the Arctic
states. The approach adopted by the Arctic Council is to regulate the shipping lanes, hydrocarbons
prospecting and the exploitation of marine resources. The Kiruna declaration has set up a number of
focused task forces to study the issues. A legally binding agreement on maritime and aeronautical
search and rescue has already come into force. More such agreements can be expected in the
future. This is where India, which has had a long-term scientific interest in the Arctic Sea going back
to the 1920 Svalbard treaty, comes in. India can learn and even contribute to the work of the Arctic
Council.
First, India has deep interest in climate change. The Kiruna declaration describes climate change as
a serious threat. It recognizes that climate change in the Arctic causes significant changes in
water, snow, ice and permafrost conditions, with cascading effects on biodiversity, ecosystems,
economic and human living conditions in the Arctic with repercussions around the world. It
recommends deep cuts in CO2 and greenhouse gases emissions. The council wishes to be proactive
in climate change negotiations. India, as a developing country and firm believer in equity, has a
position very different from that of the Arctic states that are all developed states. Will India be able
to sensitize these countries of its position? India can and must engage with the Arctic Council states
on climate change issues.
The melting of the Arctic ice can have adverse impact on global atmospheric and oceanic
circulations. Will it impact the monsoons on which India is so dependent? India also needs to study
the impact of climate change on the Himalayan glaciers that are the source of so many of Indian
rivers. The membership of the Arctic council will provide India an opportunity to get plugged into
global, cutting edge research on these issues.
Second, India which is home to a wide variety of biodiversity could gain from efforts of the council
states to adopt sustainable development measures to protect their fragile Arctic environment and
the indigenous people. Although India is located in a very different geography, it faces challenges
such as how to preserve biodiversity, contain maritime pollution, and preserve fish stocks. India can
share expertise in this regard.
Third, as the Arctic Sea opens, it will escalate new opportunities for shipping and energy
prospecting. India cannot remain indifferent as the geopolitical importance of the Arctic sea
increases. India will get involved in global governance issues pertaining to the Arctic, and
participation in the council will give it a chance to observe the emergence of the Arctic in this regard
closely.
Role of an Observer: Is it justified? Indias Role and prospects
On one hand the permanent members hold complete jurisdiction over Arctic and on the other hand
giving Observer status to nations. Let us see how impactful the OS is:
Observers do not have a role in decision making and their membership can be suspended if their
activity is not in consonance with the principles enshrined in the Arctic Councils documents. The
Arctic Council ministers have adopted a manual of rules of engagement for observer members. It
stipulates that observers are encouraged to continue to make relevant contributions through their
engagement primarily at the level of working groups. This provides India an opportunity to take
part in the meetings of various working groups. The Arctic Council has six working groups covering
pollution, monitoring and assessment, conservation of fauna and flora, emergency preparedness and
response, Arctic marine environment and sustainable development. India, given its scientific
expertise in the Arctic, Antarctic, the Himalayas and capabilities in remote sensing, can surely
contribute to the work of some of the working groups.
Indias membership of the council will boost its nascent field of Arctic research. Besides official
involvement, an opportunity also comes for Indian think tanks, which should develop close co-
operation with their Arctic counterparts to understand the evolution of the Arctic sea.

Economic gain vs Ecological catastrophe:
The on the one hand and on the other hand approach that all these stakeholders are guilty of,
merely disguises the fact that the lure of profit has already triumphed over the fear of ecological
disaster.
What could be done to restrain this headlong rush into a potential ecological catastrophe of global
dimensions?
The U.N. should set up its own Arctic body. It may be on the lines of the Indian Ocean 1.
Commission, which may provide the international community the capacity to monitor what is
happening in the region.
Draw up strict norms for activities, taking into account the global commons character of the 2.
Arctic, and put in place a credible and effective compliance mechanism. India could certainly
push for such a global regime without violating its role of Observer at the Arctic Council.
It may also be worthwhile for India and other developing states to put the Arctic on the agenda of 3.
the multilateral negotiations on Climate Change under the U.N. Framework Convention on
Climate Change.
A separate resolution or decision of the Conference of Parties to the Convention could draw 4.
attention to the Arctic as a global commons, its impact on global climate and the need to ensure
that the activities undertaken there do not harm the well-being of the vast majority of people
around the world.

A view on India, accepting the Observer Status: (Other than discussed above in implications)
Against Robin Singh and For-Tauseef Ahmad
Against:
India should have not gone for observer status. It is myopic decision. We are so far from arctic that
any commercial advantage will be marginal, both transportation and oil. So it would have been
better to ask for global common status for it and governing institutions similar to Antarctica and
then use this issue to get on moral high ground to boost stand in climate change talks. There is
barely much carbon space in atmosphere. Unlocking new oil resources would take off the pressure
of investing in clean technology. We have more to lose from climate change than to gain from few
million tons of oil.
For
But we should not forget that lone decisions never work in global agendas. As a developing nation,
India, if gone against it, would have succumbed to stand out, of what now has been at least some
voice to be heard in multilateral fora. I mentioned how India could utilize its membership being a
member.
Against:
The main reason for arctic rush is commercial gain..nothing more.. we cant gain so why rush. Many
other developing countries cant rush either. It can be used to unify all of them in climate change
whose importance is increasing every year. Use it to expose hypocrisy of developed world
For:
I agree, it is. But I feel Indias other stake and stakeholders with whom India has bilateral relations
like Russia and US, if opposed by India will have dangerous ramification for India. The sagacious
way out is not to get segregated here because other developing nations especially China has caught
this opportunity with full openness. Indias dissent will land it out of bilateral and multilateral
stands. Right now, India is already suffering from non-trustful foreign policy and another segregated
approach has no positive deliberations for India.

Against:
China has the capacity..more economic heft to do it..so it is doing it..it is also relatively more close
and soon it will have its blue water navy to protect its economic interests in far away region.india
lacks these capacities. It is true china is moving towards stand of developed countries. We are just
legitimizing the exploitation of arctic with our presence with barely any gain. At least we could have
used it to strengthen our position in climate change negotiations by staying away. We were recently
isolated there in recent years. Such an issue would have been a bargaining chip.
For:
Just because China has capacity and India do not, is it viable to come to conclusion?
I think it would be parochial on that note to discard any gainful participation and choose fruitless
segregation. One has to welcome certain futuristic stands and sustainable situation reaction process.
By that, Indias stand is well justified and well placed too. The case in point is of Kyoto Protocol and
other critical issues where Developed nations behaved like escape goats in spite of the potent issue
to be addressed. India will now have some say, if it find like-minded developing nations to deliberate
on climate change negotiations and simultaneously having a watch over riparian states activities in
Arctic region, which India would not had, if have opposed.

I do agree that the climate talk and its preservation in contemporary time is of paramount
importance but looking into the perspective of Indiathe keen interest and involvement of its long
time friend Russia in the Arctic region is very vital as pointed by #Tauseef .As India is starving for
energy and in dire need of energy securityso if Russia can emerge as big player it will surely help
India in enhancing its energy security with cheap import from Russiaand Indias recent close ties
with Canada also must not be ignored. (nishant)
Against
I understand the utility of strengthening energy security on the basis of our relationship with russia
but it is debatable that when we have been unable to secure oil from siberian oil fields in russia how
will we be able to secure substantial amount from arctic. This was an opportunity to move world
away from growing dependence on oil with not much costs to us. Lets not forget india is among the
most vulnerable countries to climate change as per IPCC report. We have to prioritise our choices
before its too late. We cannot afford the long term and larger cost of climate change but there is any
barely any short term gain in arctic. Its far away, we dont have technology to drill in such harsh
environment, dependent on goodwill of others and losing an opportunity to rally the developing
world in our favour.
I believe that if there is any chance of world to be safe from climate change, then countries will need
to bury there short term.interests and cooperate. Realistic international politics in this issue is road
to doom. Besides arctic littoral countries are going to fight for sovereignty there for long time. So i
dont think any commercial opportunities will open any time soon either. Resolving their claims
among them is not so easy. Resolving sovereignty few islands is so contentious in east china sea.
That is whole arctic.
For
I agree with ur views but do u think India is smart enough to project such moves? I think not.Lest
India is self sufficient in energy security, which is a far dream, India will never raise or align against
super powers prowess. In pragmatic sense the idea of OS is justified but theoretically ur views has
validity. I beg to differ that diplomacy is run thru cooperation and not a lone business.
Against
It is not a lone business..it is not against anyone but for climate change and alliance with developing
countries which we already need. It is realistic calculation. That region is contentious. We wont gain
much. Why not strengthen position on climate change. For long term energy security india needs
clean tech..inhouse and in collaboration..we cannot be dependent on only one source of energy
either.
Climate change will become issue of national security for many countries including us. If india was
getting good deal of oil in say next 10 yrs, it would have been better but that wont be happening.
This is profiteering from climate change by making use of pathways opened in arctic. World is
watching our actions not words.

For
when we are talking about clean energy one thing should be pretty much clear that no consensus
have been developed b/w developed and developing nation on the transfer of clean technology so
that is really a distant dream for all the least developed economiesto receive clean
energy.Secondly most of the developed nations are the biggest Industry polluters and henceforth
greatly responsible to worst climate changeso even if India takes a stand nothing much is gonna
change at the global stageso India must not loose its chance to secure its energy scenario
SeeI stated in ma article under gain and loss for India already. That though India will nt gain
much but being a mute spectator away from the alliance is much devastating than being in watch
dog like situation. Secondly, I also said that India will be monitoring the progress there and
simultaneously pursue UNs advent to have universal jurisdiction under proper legislation along with
aligning with like minded nations for the cause of GC.
Right now if India single- highhandedly wuld have gone to become hero of abjuring developed
nations, it wud be no less than a suicide in diplomatic sense.
Against
Indias presence has only legitimised their collective claim to arctic excluding the rest of the world.
India does not have power to enforce anything that it does not like happening in arctic. But we
managed to get deal at wto only because of support from other developing countries. So on climate
change we have leverage to push our cause. I find it highly doubtful if we are going to get any oil
from there anytime soon. But we have a climate deal to sign by 2015..in 2 yrs. We can be seen as
colluding with rich countries in rampaging arctic. the only major selling point of being there- large
oil tankers heading india.
India lacks enough diplomats or think tanks to do long term strategic thinking..our inability to do so
is no excuse. I am not against joining arctic council as observer. But only that benefits are not
apparent and costs are. Maybe we dont know all facts or reasons that govt considered. If there is
then i dont mind india joining. I just think not joining is also a strong counter argument.
For
Agree..but i think u r nt clear with OS .thats why u r again and again concerned of India being
benefited with oil and resources. Because OS is only a membership for scientific engagements and
endeavors to learn, not to gain. Furthermore, Indias stand is to learn first and then engage others
thru UN, which I think u r nt pointing as middle path.
Pragmatically, getting segregated with nly stretching voice that too, to deaf nations is a fools idea,
so better and smart strategy is to have some potent clout and then hit the bulls eye
bro,we succeeded in WTO not because of only developing countriess support,but there were some
other reasons and circumstances tht made this possible.I emphasised on this point because some
major developing countries like China,Pakistan,Indonesia etc. had taken away their support from
Indias stance on some serious issues,including food security.Apart from Indias successful
diplomatic handling of issues,the feel of lagging multilateral trading system also was in Developed
worlds mind and amid the stagnating world trade growth,situations has compelled them to agree on
India- led some strong determined developing countries stand.
Against
I understand scientific endeavours and other reasons. But the central reason everyone is there is for
commercial benefits..rest is secondary. UN cannot change the current structure anymore. The
reason why they had put recognizing claims of littoral countries as main condition for observer
status countries was to co-opt them. In no other international or regional institution we see such a
condition. The only reason other than energy security which seems feasible is that too many of our
strategic partners are part of it. But that is more of good will gesture.not hard nosed interest based
action. I can say with certainity that we have no influence in decisively making any change in
decision making at arctic. We are just an observer and will remain that. What happens at arctic will
soon become an issue at climate change talks and developing countries will raise it. India would not
have been alone on this issue. World needs india as much as india needs it. So isolation will not take
place.their are other issues to unite. US wont go away just because we didnt join their arctic group.
I m not merely talking in terms of principles. Its interest based. The only point is if we are getting
any concrete benefits or are there any losses. I dont see the benefits. Arctic countries mind wont
change..its made up. They want to exploit arctic.india being inside or outside doesnt matter.it wont
affect them. But i thi k our position in climate change could have been boostes.besides we could
have joined it later also. That option was open too. Why hurry. Let climate change talk get over.
For
a great amount of discussion is done with the climatic and energy security aspect of the recent
debate over Arctic Council and also Indias observer statusnow lets see how the exploration of new
energy reserves in different orientation i.e. how it will change the power equation in the world
With the discovery of shale gas reserves U.S is already gaining independence on its imports from
West Asia..and with the discovery of huge minerals and energy reserves from melting Arctic
region.U.S and Russia will emerge as the new big players in exporting these excess reserves for
the developing Asian countries.So the long era of dominance of Gulf countries will be put to a
direct threat.Strategic Importance of U.S.A towards West Asian Countries will greatly reduce as
U.S itself will be great player in export terms.So it will bestow a great chance to two Asian giants
India and China to embark their greater foot printin the West Asia and mold their foreign policies
for reaping maximum dividends out of it..
Strategically this is the best time for India and China to settle out all their outstanding issues and
march together to be the biggest Super Powers in by building Confidence Building measures and
taking each small and big Asian Countries in their common faith
With this emerging equation both Countries can have a greater say in the international and other
Asian multilateral forumsand a completely new paradigm shift of power can be experienced
Now the conclusion is after reading the article and the discussions, we can address any critical
question.
Sources:
The Hindu
Indian Express
Wikipedia