The Arctic Council requires reform, not a funeral: Commentary
It is dismaying to hear a prominent voice in Arctic academia perpetuate two falsehoods: One, that “America doesn’t need the Arctic Council,” and two, that the Arctic Council is “finished.” It is even more dismaying to consider such falsehoods may be repeated on a book tour.
We’d like to set the record straight.
The Arctic Council, despite its imperfections, remains essential for fostering cooperation on critical transboundary issues like economic development and scientific research. While it requires reform to address shortcomings and adapt to new challenges, dismissing it as ineffective ignores its contributions during turbulent times and its vital role as a stabilizing force in the Arctic region.
The Council’s collapse would create a vacuum that spoilers like China could exploit to assert greater influence. It would also destroy an important on-ramp for cooperation that will only become more important in the years to come. Reform, not abandonment, is necessary to ensure its continued relevance.
The Arctic Council is unique since its founding document, the Ottawa Declaration, explicitly excludes “matters related to military security” in favor of a focus on areas of mutual interest. What’s more, it grants full consultative rights to Arctic Indigenous Peoples, formally recognizing them as “Permanent Participants.” Efforts advanced by the Arctic Council combine western science and Indigenous Knowledge in ways that are essential to building a more complete understanding of issues of consequence that regional cooperation seeks to address.
The launch of the Wildland Fires Initiative in 2023, under the leadership of the Norwegian Chairship in partnership with Gwich’in Council International, demonstrated the ability of the Arctic Council to retain relevance and responsiveness to emerging regional issues even amidst a time of constrained cooperation.
Wildland fires are growing in scale, frequency, and intensity, and they pose a significant hazard to Arctic countries–particularly in Alaska, Canada and Russia. The wildland fire work of the Arctic Council advances pan-Arctic cooperation to understand and mitigate fire risk, the consequences of which affect the spectrum of societal interests: Public health, economic development, ecological health, social and cultural health. This work also poses a growing threat of mission creep for militaries which are often needed for timely response, but with an opportunity cost for their time, personnel and resources.
It is correct that the era of the Arctic as a “zone of peace” is no longer the reality. Europe had to deal with hybrid attacks on infrastructure and regularly grapples with electronic warfare tactics such as GPS jamming, while the Russian Arctic Olenya Air Base experiences kinetic attacks by Ukraine due to it hosting strategic bombers that target Ukrainian communities.
However, the Arctic Council has found a way to continue–even in a limited capacity–during extraordinarily trying times. That’s because the eight Arctic states and the Permanent Participants clearly understand the important role it plays in advancing stability essential for shared prosperity. Despite its challenges and need for reform, and particularly since military concerns are growing in the region, maintaining a body like the Arctic Council is crucial. Its existence allows the Arctic States to maintain laser focus on areas of mutual interest, and to foster dialogue and cooperative relationships that serve as necessary prerequisites for any prospect of a peaceful future.
Cooperation continues below the political level to advance numerous efforts of interest. Rolf Rødven, Executive Secretary of the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program (AMAP) working group, discussed this at the Oslo Arctic Security Conference last month. Even amidst current constraints, AMAP was able to produce three reports this past spring, “one on climate change, one on microplastic pollution, and one on radioactivity,” he said. “Researchers from Norway, Russia, and the USA are behind the report on radioactivity. They have discussed around a virtual roundtable and reached a consensus on the report.”
Complex Challenges
The challenges for Arctic states and their people are becoming more complex. It is increasingly vital to engage in constructive dialogue about sustaining pathways for cooperation, such as the Arctic Council, and addressing the tension between the rising demand for transboundary collaboration and the divisive issues that strain diplomatic relations. Rather than counterproductive and premature claims of the Arctic Council’s demise, the region needs thoughtful efforts to strengthen the body’s role in fostering peace and cooperation.
The Kingdom of Denmark, led by Greenland, now holds the Chairship of the Arctic Council until the spring of 2027. The eight Arctic States and the Permanent Participants were able to come to a consensus to formulate a Chairship plan to be led by the Kingdom of Denmark. The best move is to support that shared vision and continue to carve a reasonable and responsible path forward.
The mid-term review of the Arctic Council’s Strategic Plan, to be undertaken next year, will serve as a guide for measuring progress that has been achieved and how the Council may most constructively focus remaining reform efforts through 2030 to become more robust. The tasks for promoting a stronger Arctic Council remain essential, including a review of funding streams and appropriately advancing cooperation with observer states with significant regional interests.
The loss of the Arctic Council would carry an opportunity cost for the Arctic States, Permanent Participants, and Observers– particularly on transboundary cooperation on critical issues like economic development and scientific research, which ultimately do pertain to national security.
We cannot afford to learn the hard way how much value and stability we all benefit from by the Arctic Council’s existence. To secure a prosperous and peaceful Arctic, we must pursue appropriate mechanisms to strengthen this body for dialogue and collaboration, ensuring its vital work endures—because a united Arctic is the best defense for navigating the region’s chilliest challenges.
For the good of all, we hope this cooperation continues to solidify and grow in the years ahead.
Marisol Maddox is a Senior Arctic Fellow with the Institute of Arctic Studies at Dartmouth, and a Senior Associate (Non-Resident) with the Europe, Russia, and Eurasia Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). She served as an Arctic specialist, providing non-partisan subject matter expertise, at the Woodrow Wilson Center’s Polar Institute from 2018-2025.
Julia Nesheiwat is a Distinguished Fellow with the Atlantic Council’s Global Energy Center. She served as Homeland Security Advisor to the President of the United States, and as a Commissioner on the U.S. Arctic Research Commission.
