Another Potential Skirmish?

[Randy W]

.

Seems like there's no room for any military bluster from China over this one

 

Arctic Council looks beyond icy circle

 

The Arctic Council granted six countries including China, India, Italy, Japan, South Korea and Singapore permanent observer status at its eighth ministerial meeting in Kiruna, Sweden on May 15.

. . .

The inclusion of six permanent observers suggests that the Arctic nations have recognized that issues like climate change, ecological protection, usage of shipping routes and resource development in the Arctic region can no longer be reserved to a small group of Arctic countries.

They have acknowledged that Arctic governance in the future should be more inclusive and open, creating more room for non-Arctic countries to participate. This is a quite laudable move.

However, some possible bottlenecks that may confine the Arctic Council were also shown in the Kiruna meeting. One urgent problem is how to achieve sound interaction between observers and the eight Arctic countries and thus enable the observers to play a constructive role.

The meeting issued a new manual that will govern the activities and roles of the observers. They are only allowed to participate in subordinate bodies of the Arctic Council such as the working groups, task forces and expert groups, and their position will be terminated if they conduct activities in violation of the tenets of the Arctic Council.

The stipulation that observers only have limited rights in the council may frustrate their enthusiasm to provide public goods like capital and technology for Arctic governance.

 

 

[Fu Lai]

.

Seems like there's no room for any military bluster from China over this one

 

Arctic Council looks beyond icy circle

 

The Arctic Council granted six countries including China, India, Italy, Japan, South Korea and Singapore permanent observer status at its eighth ministerial meeting in Kiruna, Sweden on May 15.

. . .

The inclusion of six permanent observers suggests that the Arctic nations have recognized that issues like climate change, ecological protection, usage of shipping routes and resource development in the Arctic region can no longer be reserved to a small group of Arctic countries.

 

They have acknowledged that Arctic governance in the future should be more inclusive and open, creating more room for non-Arctic countries to participate. This is a quite laudable move.

 

However, some possible bottlenecks that may confine the Arctic Council were also shown in the Kiruna meeting. One urgent problem is how to achieve sound interaction between observers and the eight Arctic countries and thus enable the observers to play a constructive role.

 

The meeting issued a new manual that will govern the activities and roles of the observers. They are only allowed to participate in subordinate bodies of the Arctic Council such as the working groups, task forces and expert groups, and their position will be terminated if they conduct activities in violation of the tenets of the Arctic Council.

 

The stipulation that observers only have limited rights in the council may frustrate their enthusiasm to provide public goods like capital and technology for Arctic governance.

 

China's military bluster???

 

The Arctic Council members are:

Canada

Kingdom of Denmark

Finland

Iceland

Norway

Russian Federation

Sweden

United States of America

 

These so-called "arctic states" are a crock and China should not be "subordinate" among these "arctic countries", many which do nothing to promote the environment.

Edited May 23, 2013 by Fu Lai (see edit history)

[Randy W]

.

more on that . . .

 

China's Evolving Diplomacy

 

 

 

 

China’s evolving diplomacy

China’s attempts to join the Arctic Council have evolved over the years. It once took more of a bullying tone. “The Arctic belongs to all the people around the world as no nation has sovereignty over it,” said a retired Chinese navy rear admiral at a governmental meeting in 2010, adding that China should have a right to Arctic resources.

 

That tone has since softened in both official statements and the state-owned press. Sure, a little menace seeps in now and again, but for now the government mainly emphasizes its respect for the Arctic Council and that China’s foreign policy interests are strictly limited to research. “As a non-Arctic state, China must rely on diplomatic cooperation and the positive impact of scientific engagement and investments to promote its interests in the Arctic,” write Arctic geopolitics experts Linda Jakobson and Peng Jingchao (pdf, p.7).

A Trojan “Snow Dragon”?

In the last few years, China has stepped up its funding of Arctic research to investigate the effects of climate change on water levels, shipping routes and various other things. It now has a Polar Research Institute in Shanghai to train scientists in Arctic research, as well as the Xue Long (“snow dragon”), a 170m (550 ft) research icebreaker. In 2015, China will launch three research expeditions to the Arctic. Though some of this seems based on plans for exploiting the new sea route, so far these projects have been launched under the aegis of environmental science.

Is China “near-Arctic” enough?

China justifies this investment on the grounds that rising waters and melting ice affect everyone. It relies on such an argument because China’s own obsessive emphasis on “national sovereignty”—particularly when it comes to territory—leaves Chinese officials with little claim on Arctic policy. Instead, they’ve opted for referring to China as a ”near-Arctic state” and a “Arctic stakeholder.” (The shortest distance between China’s border and the Arctic Circle is about 900 miles.)