Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden, USA December 13 2011

The Arctic Council (consisting of Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, the Russian Federation, Sweden and the U.S.A.) achieved a milestone in its short history on May 12, 2011 by concluding, in Nuuk, Greenland, the Agreement on cooperation on Aeronautical and Maritime Search and Rescue in the Arctic. This SAR Agreement is the Councils first legally binding international agreement, and resulted from years of effort by the Councils staff and the governments of the Arctic Councils Member States (the Parties). The Agreement aims to strengthen cooperation and coordination in the Arctic in aeronautical and maritime search and rescue operations carried out on the territory of the Parties (meaning their respective land areas, internal waters and territorial seas, together with the superjacent airspace). Such operations are to be carried out on the basis of the International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue 1979 (the SAR Convention) and the Convention on International Civil Aviation 1944 (the Chicago Convention), with additional guidelines provided by the International Aeronautical and Maritime Search and Rescue Manual (the IAMSAR Manual). Search and rescue regions are defined for each Party, which are required to establish, operate and maintain an adequate and effective search and rescue capability within precisely defined areas of their territory. The Competent Authority of each Party is also identified, Canadas being the Minister of National Defence. The agencies responsible for search and rescue are also identified for each Party, which in Canadas case are the Canadian Forces and the Canadian Coast Guard. The aeronautical and maritime rescue coordination center (RCC) of each Party is identified. In Canada, the RCC is the Joint Rescue Coordination Centre in Trenton, Ontario. Parties may request permission to enter the territory of other Parties for search and rescue purposes (including refueling), and must be advised as soon as possible whether such entry has been permitted and, if so, under what conditions, if any, the mission may be undertaken. The most expeditious border crossing procedure possible, according to law and international obligations, shall apply in such cases. The Parties are required by the Agreement to exchange information that improves the effectiveness of search and rescue operations (e.g. re communications; search and rescue, fueling, supply and medical facilities; airfields and ports and their refueling and resupply capabilities). They must also promote cooperation, giving consideration to collaboration on many matters (e.g. exchanges of experience and visits, sharing of observations, ship reporting systems, information systems, support services, joint research and development initiatives and exercises). The Parties must meet regularly to consider and resolve issues of practical cooperation. Joint reviews of major joint search and rescue operations are encouraged after such operations have been conducted. It is to be hoped that the Arctic Council States will implement this Agreement quickly and that it will contribute significantly to enhancing the safety of both shipping and aviation in the far northern regions of our planet. The adoption of the Agreement suggests that in future, the Arctic Council will play a more significant role in creating a new, cooperative and constructive legal regime for the Arctic. In this regard, it is significant that the Council, in its Nuuk Declaration, announced its intention to establish a Task Force to report to Senior Arctic Officials on the development of an international instrument on Arctic marine oil pollution preparedness and response. It also urges the IMO to complete its work on the long-awaited mandatory polar code. THE ARCTIC COUNCIL SETS ITS COURSE FOR TOMORROW In addition to adopting SAR in the Arctic, the Arctic Council set forth the specifics of its work program for the next few years, in its Nuuk Declaration of May 12, thus setting the course for the Councils future work in improving the life of the Arctic peoples and their circumpolar environment. The following are some highlights of the Nuuk Declaration: Establishing a permanent secretariat for the Arctic Council, in Troms, Norway, no later than 2013, when Canada again assumes chairmanship of the Council. Establishing a task force to implement decisions strengthening the Arctic Council. Adopting criteria to evaluate pending applications for observer status in the Arctic Council (e.g. from China and the European Union). Developing a Strategic Communications Plan for the Council. Recognizing the need to improve the physical and mental health and well-being of the Arctics indigenous peoples and residents and to assess human development in the Arctic. I nstructing Senior Arctic Officials (the body that directs the Councils work, meeting every six months) to consider how best to follow up on the recommendations made by the SWIPA Report on Snow, Water, Ice and Permafrost in the Arctic, in view of climate change as it affects the cryosphere. Supporting the reduction of black carbon and other emissions and establishing a Short-Lived Climate Forcer Contaminants project steering group to conduct circumpolar demonstra tion projects to reduce such emissions. Supporting intergovernmental negotiations of the UN Environment Program towards a global agreement on reducing mercury emissions. Approving use of traditional knowledge of the Arctics indigenous peoples in measures to address climate change. Establishing an expert group on ecosystem-based management of the Arctic environment. Working on an Arctic marine oil pollution preparedness and response agreement; calling for the Emergency Prevention, Preparedness and Response Working Group to develop best practices for the prevention of marine oil pollution; and encouraging Senior Arctic Officials to consider that Working Groups report, Behavior of Oil and Other Hazardous Substances in Arctic Waters. Supporting the SAR Agreement and urging the IMO to complete its mandatory polar code for Arctic shipping. Fostering the Sustaining Arctic Observing Networks (SAON) process for enhancing scientific observations and data-sharing and promoting the Knowledge to Action Conference in Montral in 2012 (the concluding event of the International Polar Year). Inviting Senior Arctic Officials to consider supporting the proposal for an International Polar Decade to undertake further research on the Arctic environment, in light of the speed of climate change. Encouraging continuing support for the University of Arctic on its tenth anniversary. Reiterating the need for adequate financing of circumpolar coopera tion and the participation of the six Permanent Participants (indigenous groups) in Arctic Council structures and projects. Committing the Arctic Council to continued cooperation with other relevant bodies. The Arctic Councils work program represents a major strategic plan for addressing a host of concerns.

Arctic Council Completes Major Science Report on the State of the Arctic Cryosphere Fact Sheet Office of the Spokesman Washington, DC May 12, 2011

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton joined her counterparts at the May 12, 2011 Arctic Council Ministerial Meeting in Nuuk, Greenland, in welcoming the release of a major climate science report on the state of the frozen Arctic. The Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP), a working group of the Arctic Council, released an assessment report on the impacts of climate change on Snow, Water, Ice, and Permafrost in the Arctic (SWIPA). The report represents the culmination of a multi-year study that included contributions from scientists and indigenous groups from all of the Arctic States and additional expertise from nonArctic communities as well. The report assembles the latest scientific knowledge about the changing state of each component of the Arctic cryosphere- or ice-bound environment - including snow, frozen ground, ice on rivers and lakes, glaciers, ice caps, ice sheets and sea ice. The report goes on to assess how changes to human activities and ecosystem services within the cryosphere, such as freshwater supplies, will impact the Arctic ecosystem as well as people living within the Arctic and elsewhere in the world. The United States contributed to the SWIPA report by serving as the lead for several chapters and by providing numerous authors and expert reviewers. Issues of interest

The last six years (2005-2010) have been the warmest period ever recorded in the Arctic. Based on temperature measurements going back to around 1880 and using evidence such as lake sediments, tree rings and ice cores, Arctic summer temperatures over the past few decades have been higher than at any time in two thousand years. The extent and duration of snow cover and sea-ice have decreased across the Arctic while the temperature of the permafrost (frozen ground) has risen by up to 2C over the last few decades. The largest bodies of ice in the Arctic multi-year sea ice, mountain glaciers, ice caps and the Greenland Ice Sheet - have all been declining faster since 2000 than they did in the previous decade, which may have a significant impact on the acceleration of sea-level rise in the future. Global sea level is projected to rise by 0.9 to 1.6m (2.95 to 5.25 ft) by 2100, and Arctic ice loss will make a substantial contribution to this. Model projections reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2007 underestimated the rates of change now observed in sea ice. The Arctic Ocean is projected to become mostly ice-free in late summer within this century, perhaps within the next thirty to forty years. Changes in the cryosphere cause fundamental changes to the characteristics of Arctic ecosystems and in some cases loss of entire habitats. This has consequences for people who depend on Arctic ecosystems to supplement their livelihoods. Arctic infrastructure- including roads, sewer systems, and runways- faces increased risks of damage due to changes in the cryosphere, particularly the loss of permafrost and land-fast sea ice. Loss of ice and snow in the Arctic accelerates global climate warming because the darker surface absorbs more of the suns energy. It could also turn the Arctic into a net source of carbon dioxide and methane and change large-scale ocean currents. The combined outcome of these effects is not yet known. There remains a great deal of uncertainty about how fast the Arctic cryosphere will change in the future and what the ultimate impacts of the changes will be. Interactions (feedbacks) between elements of the cryosphere and the climate system are particularly uncertain.

Today, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar will attend the 7th Arctic Council Ministerial Meeting. Clinton will be the first secretary of state to ever attend an Arctic Council meeting, underscoring its importance for achieving substantive agreements on the myriad challenges facing the region. The Arctic is warming twice as fast as the rest of the planet. Warming seas mean less ice, which means increased access for shipping, fishing, and oil and gas extraction in one of the last unexploited regions of the planet. The council has not kept pace with the rate of change occurring in the region to date and, as a result, there is an overwhelming lack of unified, strategic management structures, particularly on the issues of climate change and drilling in the Arctic. At the meeting, member statesCanada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, and Sweden, as well as representatives of the Arctic indigenous populations will address several issues regarding the role of the council and how these nations can work together to address the effect the rapidly changing Arctic will continue to have on the environmental, economic, and national security interests of each nation. The formal agenda includes the signing of an Arctic search-and-rescue coordination treatynoteworthy as the first legally binding agreement to be signed by the eight member nationswhich will hopefully pave the way for similar agreements on more controversial issues. Climate change One such contentious concern is the impact of climate change on the Arctic. The Snow, Water, Ice and Permafrost in the Arctic assessment, conducted by the councils scientific arm, the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme, found that observed effects of climate change in the Arctic are much more extensive and rapid than scientists predicted. CAPs Joe Romm commented on this groundbreaking report: The Arctic Ocean is projected to become nearly ice-free in summer within this century, likely within the next thirty to forty years. loss of ice and snow in the Arctic enhances climate warming by increasing absorption of the suns energy at the surface of the planet. It could also dramatically increase emissions of carbon dioxide and methane and change large-scale ocean currents. The combined outcome of these effects is not yet known.

Perhaps the most alarming finding in the report is the prediction that sea level will rise up to 5.2 feet by 2100. The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicted 7 to 23 inches of sea-level rise in 2007 but didnt count the effect of vast amounts of melting ice in Greenland. This dramatic shift will have untold ramifications for the hundreds of millions of people living in coastal communities around the world. The time has now passed for the council to launch further task forces or commission more studies into the matter. Dealing with climate change in the short term will require concrete commitments from every Arctic Council member nation to aggressively curb greenhouse gas emissions. This Ministerial, with the added influence of Secretary Clinton, provides the ideal forum for such a commitment. Offshore drilling Another critical discussion item will be Secretary Clintons push for an Arctic oil spill response task force. Almost a fifth of the worlds remaining oil and gas is thought to lie north of the Arctic Circle, much of it offshore, and with gas prices rising, oil companies are eager to tap into the potential riches. The Arctic, however, is unlike any other region in which these companies are currently drilling. Twenty-foot swells, subzero temperatures, weather that can ground aircraft for days or weeks, and a complete lack of infrastructure make a spill of any size more likely and nearly impossible to clean up. A spill anywhere in the Arctic could take years to clean up and would be catastrophic to the entire region. Cairn, a Scottish company, recently won approval to begin drilling four wells this year in Greenlandthe first exploration to take place off the countrys coast in a decade. As Ben Ayliffe of Greenpeace International points out, It took BP months to stop Macondo, with a fleet of 6,500 ships, with 50,000 people and a bill of about $40 billion. Cairn, valued at about $9.8 billion, is not the sort of company that can afford to take a $40 billion hit on an oil spill. Like climate change, developing a unified, responsible policy on offshore drilling is an agenda item that cannot wait any longer. Royal Dutch Shell submitted risky plans to the U.S. Department of the Interior just last week seeking permission for four exploratory wells over the next two years in the Beaufort Sea off Alaskas North Slope. And the company has plans to file requests for up to six more wells in the Chukchi Sea off the western coast of Alaska. Shell has invested billions of dollars into exploring Arctic drilling, without a demonstrated ability to adequately respond to a spill. Oil companies are primed to drive their drill bits into the Arctic and will not wait for the council or any other governing body to deliberate their course of action. Secretary Clinton must leverage her considerable clout to obtain a responsible, multiyear contingency plan to manage the onslaught of offshore drilling in the Arctic. Pressing the issue even further is the fact that this week, the Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives will continue debate on a trio of sweeping offshore drilling bills. The legislation would completely disregard the lessons learned in the wake of the Deepwater Horizon disaster and instead open up enormous areas of the outer continental shelf to drilling, with expedited permitting and no increased safety measures. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea One issue that will not be discussed formally is the failure of the United States to ratify the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, or UNCLOS. Accession to the international treaty, which has been in place for 30 years and has been signed by nearly 160 countries and the EU, is a top priority of Secretary Clinton and several other leaders in the international affairs and national security community. While the treatys prospects in this Senate remain uncertain, failure to ratify will leave the United States at an economic, strategic, and diplomatic disadvantage. Both climate change and expanded resource extraction will have a significant impact on the economic development and national security of the region. A recent report issued by the Center for Strategic and International Studies highlights this trend: With greater accessibility to the Arctic region and its abundant resources come both new opportunities for multilateral cooperation and the potential for regional competition and dispute, particularly conflicting territorial claims and managing maritime resources. Now more than ever will the Arctic need a unified approach to addressing the threats the region is facing. U.S. policy in the Arctic to date has been to remain outside Arctic governing structures, such as UNCLOS, or to only participate in informal, technical, and projectdriven Arctic organizations. This approach will not work any longer. Any comprehensive U.S. policy aimed at protecting our interests in the Arctic, as well as the suffering ecosystem and native populations that depend on it for survival, requires swift ratification of the Law of the Sea Convention. In the immediate term, todays Arctic Ministerial provides the unique opportunity to fully apprehend the current situation in the worlds last great frontier and take concrete steps to protect it. Global warming unlocks new treasures It is clear that Arctic states wish to increase their sovereignty over these disputed waters as global warming will unlock a host of new treasures. The melting of Arctic ice, for example, will allow new efficient trade routes. The distance from Shanghai to New Jersey, for example, would be 4.350 miles shorter than through the Panama Canal. Such new commercial sea lanes could also relieve congestion on bottlenecks such as the Suez and Panama Canals as well as the Strait of Malacca. In addition, they would avoid the politically volatile Middle East and piracy at the Horn of Africa. The High North is also rich in natural resources. According to the US Geological Survey the region possesses 13 per cent of the worlds undiscovered oil and 30 per cent of undiscovered natural gas. With dwindling oil and gas reserves from conventional fields, new supplies in the Arctic will sooner or later have to be brought online in order to meet global demand. The bi-annual resource report from the Norwegian Petroleum Directorate, published last month, illustrates this by pointing out that Norway will have to go further into the Arctic if it wishes to maintain production figures. Besides energy resources, the Arctic is also home to important fish stocks and precious metals. Cod in the Barents Sea and Pollock in the Russian Far East of the Arctic, for example, represent roughly 25 per cent of the global catch of whitefish. Moreover, polar invertebrates represent a valuable resource for the chemical and pharmaceutical sectors as they are used in the production of analgesics and other types of medication. The Great Game in the Arctic Simultaneously, Arctic militarization is driven by domestic dynamics. Here, the circumpolar nations security and defence establishments play a particular role as they naturally wish to expand their operational scope and responsibilities as well as budgets. The very fact that military chest-thumping and gung-ho sovereignty exercises in the region can provide politicians with an increased popularity amongst the electorate is also certainly not forgotten by Arctic governments. In this context, it has been all the rage for politicians and the Armed Forces to paint a dramatic picture of a new emerging great game in the Arctic, which includes resource wars and threats to national interest and sovereignty. Emotions are also running high as many circumpolar nations are exceedingly sensitive towards developments in the High North due to the fact that they identify themselves with the Arctic, considering it a vital part of their cultural heritage. This further impedes rational policy-making and explains why classical hard security threats are exaggerated. Ironically, however, it is these exact Sturm und Drang appeals for greater military securitization of the Arctic that may actually back-fire turning into self-fulfilling prophecies that could culminate in an arms race. Fact of the matter is that the issue of Arctic sovereignty and resources is still determined by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), under which each claimant state can extend their Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) if it can prove that the geological structure of the continental shelf is an extension of its continental platform. In addition, the coastal Arctic states reconfirmed their commitment to UNCLOS at a meeting in Ilulissat, Greenland in May 2008. Scientists and politicians rather than troops will therefore decide the Arctics fate. The role of non-state actors Instead, real threats to sovereignty are emerging from cross-boundary issues and non-state actors. Climate change and the melting of the Arctics ice cap, for example, will not only affect the local eco-system and indigenous ways of life but it will also lead to a catastrophic rise in the worlds ocean levels endangering small island states and other low-lying areas A melting Arctic and the new resources and transport routes available will also attract a panoply of oil and gas majors, shipping companies, tour operators and criminal activity ranging from human traffickers and drug cartels to terrorist groups. The latter has particularly been identified by Januarys US Presidential Directive, which notes the potential vulnerability of the United States to terrorist and criminal acts in the Arctic region. As such, what is urgently needed is not an uncoordinated zealous and emotional push for greater military involvement but better civilian governance and inter-state cooperation. This would include a robust agreement for mitigating global warming, as is currently negotiated, the creation of an efficient multilateral governance umbrella mechanism for the Arctic which will cover environmental protection, navigation, the extraction of natural resources, and legal frameworks, as well as

effective and co-ordinated civilian enforcement of the region in order to impose clear rules of conduct as well as provide maritime services such as search and rescue, surveillance, weather reporting and good mapping. Arctic states must come back to their senses and realise that increasing their military presence will not solve the regions problems but might actually serve to exacerbate tensions. GREENPEACE activists, currently docked in Nassau on one of the environmental group's ships, say climate change is a major threat to the Bahamas. According to Joel Stewart, a 22-year veteran of the organisation and captain of Greenpeace's "Arctic Sunrise" icebreaker ship, climate change is very serious issue for a maritime state like the Bahamas. The Arctic Sunrise, docked in the harbour for maintenance and crew changes, allowed The Tribune aboard to discuss Greenpeace's environmental campaigns and the possible impact of global warming on the Bahamas. Climate change, which is attributed to global warming, is an increase in the average temperature of Earth's near-surface air and oceans caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (CO2), which scientists and activists say results from human activity such as the burning of fossil fuels. Specific effects of climate change that could impact the Bahamas include: rising sea levels; increase in the intensity and frequency of hurricanes; coral bleaching; and acidification of the atmosphere and in turn, the ocean. According to Captain Stewart, plankton absorb CO2 from the atmosphere and release oxygen into the water making it more acidic. The acidic water dissolves the shells of carbonic animals such as crabs, oysters and more important to the Bahamas, corals and reefs. He said: "Climate change is a severe threat to global security - we must find a new energy methods in order to reduce CO2 emissions". It is important for the Bahamas to phase out the use of fossil fuel and invest in clean energy sources such as solar and wind power, both of which are abundant in the Bahamas, said Cpt Stewart. Increasing the volume of marine reserves would also be a logical step in the protection and conservation of the Bahamian marine environment. Regulating the reserves in partially sensitive sea areas (PSSA), which makes them off limits to large fishing boats, cargo and cruise ships, would decrease potentially damaging human interaction with the fragile marine life. Recycling Cpt Stewart went on to suggest the creation of a recycling system. He said: "Recycling is easy and can be mutually beneficial. It would be a way to reduce the country's carbon footprint and is an easy way to save money in the disposal of garbage and waste". He emphasised the point that it is not too late to reverse the effects of climate change, the key being a proactive approach to the environment. "There is a road map/plan that will phase out the use of fossil fuels and introduce clean alternative energy sources without destroying the economy; everyone just needs to get on board" he said. The main goal is to reduce atmospheric CO2 to 350 parts per million. The atmospheric CO2 is currently 387 parts per million, which compared to the pre-industrial age's 280 parts per million, is a huge increase. Once atmospheric CO2 reaches a certain level, the effects will be irreversible. He said: "Just because the Bahamas is a small country does not mean it cannot make a difference and have a global impact". Cpt Stewart explained that the Bahamas may also be effected by the Deepwater Horizon oil spill (also known as the BP oil spill), as disbursement agents were used on the some 205.8 million gallons of crude oil that was released into the ocean over a three month period. He said: "It will probably be 10 years before we can understand the full environmental effects of that disaster and the possibility of the currents pushing the oil into Caribbean waters is very real."

BahamianUS relations The Bahamas and the United States historically have had close economic and commercial relations. The countries share ethnic and cultural ties, especially in education; The Bahamas is home to approximately 30,000 American residents. In addition, there are about 110 U.S.-related businesses in The Bahamas and, in 2005, 87% of the 5 million tourists visiting The Bahamas were American. As a neighbor, The Bahamas and its political stability are especially important to the United States. The U.S. and the Bahamian governments have worked together on reducing crime and addressing migration issues. With the closest island only 45 miles from the coast of Florida, The Bahamas often is used as a gateway for drugs andillegal aliens bound for the United States. The United States and The Bahamas cooperate closely to handle these threats. U.S. assistance and resources have been essential to Bahamian efforts to mitigate the persistent flow of illegal narcotics and migrants through the archipelago. The United States and The Bahamas also actively cooperate on law enforcement, civil aviation, marine research, meteorology, and agricultural issues. The U.S. Navy operates an underwater research facility on Andros Island. The Department of Homeland Security's Bureau of Customs and Border Protection maintains "preclearance" facilities at the airports in Nassau and Freeport. Travelers to the U.S. are interviewed and inspected before departure, allowing faster connection times in the U.S. Imagine in 2040 the Arctic Ocean is navigable for an extended period each summer. Then imagine Arctic states navies going to war, head to head, in the Arctic Ocean over natural resources. A computer game set to be released in the second quarters of 2012 called Naval War: Arctic Circle, imagines just such an environment. According to CPU Gamer, In the future, civilization is still reliant on petroleum, but the easily accessible land-based oil reserves are dwindling rapidly. The nations of the far north struggle to harness the rich untapped wells of the Arctic Circle and will go to war to guarantee control of the black gold.[2] The irony of the scenario Naval War: Arctic Circle projects is exactly why an international mechanism is needed to preclude such a scenario. So it isnt to hard to imagine an Arctic where every Arctic nation has its own fleet of armed Arctic patrol ships like the one pictured above. What would that kind of Arctic be like? Would it constitute a militarization of the Arctic? Would such a development encourage conflict? The more important question is how can Arctic states undertake Arctic Patrol Ship construction programs without jeopardizing the stability of the Arctic? The answer is to commit to an Arctic Council Security Agreement centered around the creation of a multi-national Arctic Response Force that recognizes and respects states, and their indigenous populations sovereignty.

Arctic states are actively undertaking major Arctic shipbuilding programs. The latest pronouncement came from the Russian Federation, who on 20 December 2011 announced the Zvezdochka yard in Severodvinsk will begin construction of ice-class vessels crewed by a complement of sixty and designed to transport military hardware.[3] By the same token, on 19 October 2011 Canadas National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy (NSPS) Secretariat announced Irving Shipbuilding, Inc. had been selected to build the Arctic Offshore Patrol Ship.[4] Norway and Denmark currently possess armed Arctic patrol ships. The Norwegian Svalbard class and the Danish Thetis-class ice- capable patrol ships current operate in Arctic waters.[5] Despite the projected proliferation of ice-capable Arctic patrol ships, this does not currently constitutes a threat to Arctic security. To avoid jeopardizing the current stability of the Arctic, brokering an Arctic Council Security Agreement is perhaps the best way to avoid militarization of the Arctic in the longer-term. Long-term stability in a region could be jeopardized by misunderstandings and further exacerbated by a general lack of a shared vision. The Arctic region comprised of five littoral states, eight Arctic Council member states and several indigenous nations all have a vested interest in a stable Arctic today for economic and security reasons. However, a regional security agreement should be put in place as the Arctic opens to increased exploitation to guarantee stability and security. Without one, events are left to chance and chance is a fickle partner.

But under which international body should a regional security agreement be brokered? Preliminarily, there are significant obstacles to creating an Arctic Council agreement because the councils charter precludes it from dealing with matter related to military security.[6] But the obstacles associated with an Arctic Council Security Agreement aside, lets consider possible options. Possible candidates include the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the European Union (EU), the United Nations (UN), the Arctic Council (AC) and perhaps an ad hoc organization. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization cannot be considered a likely candidate because some of the Arctic Council nations are not member states and Russia would interpret the Alliances presence in the Arctic as tantamount to encirclement. The EU is not a likely candidate because not all Arctic Council nations are part of the EU and some of these countries overtures to join the EU have been spurned. The UN could be likely a candidate, however, were the United States inclined to join, Congress would likely interpret participation under the UN as an encroachment on its sovereignty. One has only to look at opposition within the U.S. Senate to accession to the Law of the Sea Treaty to understand the challenge associated with this option. That leaves either the Arctic Council or an ad hoc organization. One way of looking at these options is to ask oneself which organization represents the best guarantor of Arctic nations, and their indigenous populations, security? Success being defined as all Arctic nations agree to collectivized security and the Arctic opens in a peaceful manner consistent with international norms. In short, the logical answer is a fundamental change to the Arctic Councils charter. Caution is strongly recommended when amending international treaties or agreements. That is why this author recommends a more nuanced approach. The question then is what kind of challenges would encourage Arctic littoral nations to collectivize security? The immediate challenge facing Arctic nations and their indigenous populations are safety and security related. The recent Arctic Council Search & Rescue Agreement highlights a principle concern of its member states. Discussions about environmental response and fisheries protection are further examples of contemporary safety and security needs. And these challenges will mainly come on the periphery, along the Northern Sea Route and the Northwest Passage for the immediate future. But, if the satellite record data continues to reveal a receding ice cap, one can only assume that in twenty years time much more of the Arctic Ocean will be navigable. Therefore, it is vital to plan today for tomorrows safety and security challenges.

Arctic nations like Canada, Denmark and Norway are in varying stages of building a fleet of armed Arctic patrol ships. What will happen when these nations, and perhaps other Arctic nations, commit to armed, ice-capable ship building programs? Will this lead to a militarization the Arctic? Will a nation or nations feel threatened and jeopardize the stability and security of the region? One might ask what would jeopardize stability and security? The answer is economic interests. Where economic interests proceed, security must follow. There should be little need to highlight the reported natural resources of the Arctic, not to mention its cost-saving routes to high latitude ports. There was a war in the name of the Cod fish in the last century, lest we forget. If that is not persuasive enough, consider the recent rhetoric of Chinas Rear Admiral Yin Zhuo: "The Arctic belongs to all the people around the world as no nation has sovereignty over it...China must play an indispensable role in Arctic exploration as we have one-fifth of the world's population.[7] To avoid misperceptions and an Arctic ship building race, in addition to an Arctic Council Security Agreement, nations should also commit themselves to a multilateral Arctic Response Force. The idea of an Arctic Response Force is not new. Denmark, according to their Arctic strategy, has proposed creation of a national Arctic Response Force, designed to provide security for its Arctic waters.[8] The concept put forward in this article is simply a regionalization of the Danish model. Collectivized security by its very nature is intended to be a guarantor of transparency, cooperation, collaboration and trust. Some Arctic member states inherently realize collective security is the right idea. What may concerned them is surrender of their sovereignty. The ideas put forward in this article seek to preserve the integrity of each nations sovereignty, but link together national efforts under a single agreement that provides security for the Arctic Ocean and adjacent seas. Furthermore, the notion of an Arctic security agreement and an Arctic Response Force is not expected to pool resources or levy a membership fee. Rather, it seeks to link, in a coherent way, each nations territory into a regional security architecture. Assuming for a moment Arctic nations were willing to collectively secure the Arctic region, what is it an Arctic Response Force would be expected to do? Possible missions might include assisting in Search & Rescue efforts, environmental response assistance, maritime security, prevent illegal fishing, poaching and whaling, ensure the freedom of navigation, prevent eco-terrorism, just to name a few. The Arctic today consists of two primary shipping routes, the Northern Sea Route and the Northwest Passage.

While the preponderance of these two routes lie within the Russian Federations and the Government Canadas territorial waters, the approaches and exits are adjacent to other Arctic states. Consequently, Arctic risks are assumed by all the Arctic states and their indigenous populations, whether its a vessel originating in the Baltic destined to transit the Northern Sea Route or an Asian-based vessel intending to transit the Northwest Passage. If originating in the Baltic, Sweden, Finland, Norway, Russia and the United States all have an interest in this vessels safe passage in or near their territorial waters. If originating in Asia, the United States, Russia and Norway have a direct interest, but so might Sweden, Finland, Iceland and Denmark. The point is the challenge associated with an opening Arctic is one that should be undertaken by all and codified in an agreement. Before discussing the content of an Arctic Council Security Agreement, it is worth mentioning that leadership is a key component of this agreement. Arctic challenges are shared by governments and by national defense and security organizations. Therefore, to sustain security and stability of the region, defense and security leadership should form an Arctic Council Chiefs of Defense and Chiefs of Coast Guard forum. The regularity of their meetings should be in keeping with standard Arctic Council procedures. The nation who holds the chairmanship of the Arctic Council should host the aforementioned forums. It maybe necessary to form sub-committees, but these should be limited. So, what should an Arctic Council Security Agreement contain? What are its essential parts? Arctic Council Security Agreement An Arctic Council Security Agreement should comprise at least eight elements: 1) shared interests, 2) sovereign responsibilities, 3) shared challenges, 4) shared missions, 5) state resources, 6) organization of Defense and Coast Guard Chiefs Council, 7) exercises and conferences, and 8) specific instructions. Governing states willingness to commit to such an arrangement is their shared interests. Chief among states interests should be a peaceful opening of the Arctic. This high ideal should serve as the preamble to the Arctic Council Security Agreement. Next, a clear statement of sovereign responsibility should be articulated at this point. Following a statement of shared interests and sovereign responsibility, states should outline their shared challenges. Challenges may include Search & Rescue, Environmental Response, Fisheries Management, etc. Framed by a comprehensive list of defined challenges, Arctic states should outline agreed missions to meet the challenges. Both challenges and missions should be framed in time-horizons, because not all challenges will be realized today. Challenges and missions should also be informed by the permanent representatives to the Arctic Council. To gain consensus on the challenges and missions it will be necessary to look for the common challenges resident in Arctic states strategic documents. Furthermore, states should frame their commitment of resources to preserve Arctic security and ensure a peaceful opening of the Arctic. Resourcing should attempt to link indigenous efforts such as the Canadian Rangers and other analogous indigenous security forces. Ideally, Arctic states should look to their indigenous populations to serve as the backbone of their Arctic Response Force, structuring them as first responders and guides. And as discussed previously, organization of a Chiefs of Defense and Coast Guards forum and necessary sub- committees should be expressed. Sub-committees might include Maritime Domain Awareness, aids to navigation

and other security and defense related matters. Additionally, guidance as to the regularity of regional exercises and conferences should be communicated. Finally, states should draft specific instructions to cover remaining issues that do not fit neatly into previous mentioned categories. For example, there are invariably nature seams in the transition zones between states boundaries that should be addressed to promote cooperation and collaboration. The Arctic is changing rapidly; more rapidly perhaps than Arctic nations are preparing to meet the challenges associated with an opening Arctic. Therefore, it is paramount that Arctic Council nations codify an Arctic Council Security Agreement that can serve to govern safety and security in a changing Arctic. Additionally, they should create an Arctic Response Force as a means to address safety and security challenges. Without such an agreement, militarization, increased defense spending, heightened national security risks and other concerns may lead where Arctic nations do not seek to go. Therefore, shared security interests are an essential starting point to ensure a peaceful opening of the Arctic.

Today, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar will attend the 7th Arctic Council Ministerial Meeting. Clinton will be the first secretary of state to ever attend an Arctic Council meeting, underscoring its importance for achieving substantive agreements on the myriad challenges facing the region. The Arctic is warming twice as fast as the rest of the planet. Warming seas mean less ice, which means increased access for shipping, fishing, and oil and gas extraction in one of the last unexploited regions of the planet. The council has not kept pace with the rate of change occurring in the region to date and, as a result, there is an overwhelming lack of unified, strategic management structures, particularly on the issues of climate change and drilling in the Arctic. At the meeting, member statesCanada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, and Sweden, as well as representatives of the Arctic indigenous populations will address several issues regarding the role of the council and how these nations can work together to address the effect the rapidly changing Arctic will continue to have on the environmental, economic, and national security interests of each nation. The formal agenda includes the signing of an Arctic search-and-rescue coordination treatynoteworthy as the first legally binding agreement to be signed by the eight member nationswhich will hopefully pave the way for similar agreements on more controversial issues. Climate change One such contentious concern is the impact of climate change on the Arctic. The Snow, Water, Ice and Permafrost in the Arctic assessment, conducted by the councils scientific arm, the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme, found that observed effects of climate change in the Arctic are much more extensive and rapid than scientists predicted. CAPs Joe Romm commented on this groundbreaking report: The Arctic Ocean is projected to become nearly ice-free in summer within this century, likely within the next thirty to forty years. loss of ice and snow in the Arctic enhances climate warming by increasing absorption of the suns energy at the surface of the planet. It could also dramatically increase emissions of carbon dioxide and methane and change large-scale ocean currents. The combined outcome of these effects is not yet known. Perhaps the most alarming finding in the report is the prediction that sea level will rise up to 5.2 feet by 2100. The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicted 7 to 23 inches of sea-level rise in 2007 but didnt count the effect of vast amounts of melting ice in Greenland. This dramatic shift will have untold ramifications for the hundreds of millions of people living in coastal communities around the world. The time has now passed for the council to launch further task forces or commission more studies into the matter. Dealing with climate change in the short term will require concrete commitments from every Arctic Council member nation to aggressively curb greenhouse gas emissions. This Ministerial, with the added influence of Secretary Clinton, provides the ideal forum for such a commitment. Offshore drilling Another critical discussion item will be Secretary Clintons push for an Arctic oil spill response task force. Almost a fifth of the worlds remaining oil and gas is thought to lie north of the Arctic Circle, much of it offshore, and with gas prices rising, oil companies are eager to tap into the potential riches. The Arctic, however, is unlike any other region in which these companies are currently drilling. Twenty-foot swells, subzero temperatures, weather that can ground aircraft for days or weeks, and a complete lack of infrastructure make a spill of any size more likely and nearly impossible to clean up. A spill anywhere in the Arctic could take years to clean up and would be catastrophic to the entire region. Cairn, a Scottish company, recently won approval to begin drilling four wells this year in Greenlandthe first exploration to take place off the countrys coast in a decade. As Ben Ayliffe of Greenpeace International points out, It took BP months to stop Macondo, with a fleet of 6,500 ships, with 50,000 people and a bill of about $40 billion. Cairn, valued at about $9.8 billion, is not the sort of company that can afford to take a $40 billion hit on an oil spill. Like climate change, developing a unified, responsible policy on offshore drilling is an agenda item that cannot wait any longer. Royal Dutch Shell submitted risky plans to the U.S. Department of the Interior just last week seeking permission for four exploratory wells over the next two years in the Beaufort Sea off Alaskas North Slope. And the company has plans to file requests for up to six more wells in the Chukchi Sea off the western coast of Alaska. Shell has invested billions of dollars into exploring Arctic drilling, without a demonstrated ability to adequately respond to a spill. Oil companies are primed to drive their drill bits into the Arctic and will not wait for the council or any other governing body to deliberate their course of action. Secretary Clinton must leverage her considerable clout to obtain a responsible, multiyear contingency plan to manage the onslaught of offshore drilling in the Arctic. Pressing the issue even further is the fact that this week, the Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives will continue debate on a trio of sweeping offshore drilling bills. The legislation would completely disregard the lessons learned in the wake of the Deepwater Horizon disaster and instead open up enormous areas of the outer continental shelf to drilling, with expedited permitting and no increased safety measures. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea One issue that will not be discussed formally is the failure of the United States to ratify the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, or UNCLOS. Accession to the international treaty, which has been in place for 30 years and has been signed by nearly 160 countries and the EU, is a top priority of Secretary Clinton and several other leaders in the international affairs and national security community. While the treatys prospects in this Senate remain uncertain, failure to ratify will leave the United States at an economic, strategic, and diplomatic disadvantage. Both climate change and expanded resource extraction will have a significant impact on the economic development and national security of the region. A recent report issued by the Center for Strategic and International Studies highlights this trend: With greater accessibility to the Arctic region and its abundant resources come both new opportunities for multilateral cooperation and the potential for regional competition and dispute, particularly conflicting territorial claims and managing maritime resources. Now more than ever will the Arctic need a unified approach to addressing the threats the region is facing. U.S. policy in the Arctic to date has been to remain outside Arctic governing structures, such as UNCLOS, or to only participate in informal, technical, and projectdriven Arctic organizations. This approach will not work any longer. Any comprehensive U.S. policy aimed at protecting our interests in the Arctic, as well as the suffering ecosystem and native populations that depend on it for survival, requires swift ratification of the Law of the Sea Convention. In the immediate term, todays Arctic Ministerial provides the unique opportunity to fully apprehend the current situation in the worlds last great frontier and take concrete steps to protect it.