Padmashree Anandhan

The following note was first published as a part of The World This Week  #310 & 311, Vol 7 Nos 19 & 20, 18 May 2025
What happened?
On 12 May, the 14th Arctic Council meeting was held virtually, marking the end of Norway’s chairship between 2023 and 2025. Representatives from the eight Arctic States and six Indigenous Permanent Participants took part in the session, which ended with the release of the Romssa-Tromsø Statement. The joint declaration affirmed the Council’s commitment to peace, stability and cooperation in the Arctic region. Norway’s Minister of Foreign Affairs said: “In a challenging time for Arctic cooperation, I am pleased that the Arctic Council remains united.”

According to the Arctic Council report: “Arctic States and Permanent Participants emphasized the importance of dialogue and collaboration through the Arctic Council, highlighting the Council’s nearly three-decade legacy as the preeminent forum for circumpolar cooperation. They also reaffirmed their commitment to addressing the region’s environmental, social, and human challenges, with the well-being of Arctic communities—and particularly Indigenous Peoples—at the center of its mission.”

On 12 May, Denmark assumed the Arctic Council chairmanship following the end of Norway’s term. The US and Russia have not issued major statements; however, prior to the Arctic Council Meeting, the US assured its commitment to Arctic cooperation through a resolution 167, emphasising the need for increased collaboration among Arctic Council member states. Whereas Russia’s Foreign Ministry indicated its readiness for dialogue on Arctic agenda if “conducted on an equal and mutually beneficial basis.”

What is the background?
First, a brief on the Arctic Council. The Arctic Council in an intergovernmental forum formed in 1996 to promote cooperation and interaction among the Arctic states, Indigenous communities and Arctic residents on issues mainly relating to sustainable development and environmental protection. Its eight member states include Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden and the US, along with six Indigenous Permanent Participant organizations and 35 observers, including non-Arctic countries, intergovernmental organizations and NGOs. The Council operates through six working groups with ministerial meetings every two years to set its priorities and review the progress. Its focus so far has been away from geopolitics. Following the war in Ukraine, it has faced immense pressure, resulting in the suspension of direct cooperation with Russia. 

Second, Arctic and the geopolitical background. The geopolitical tensions after war in Ukraine and Trump’s presidency have heightened with increased presence of NATO, China and Russia. Trump’s proposal to purchase Greenland underlines the US’s focus on increasing its influence in the Arctic, raising concerns among the Nordic partners. Simultaneously, China’s growing investments in scientific stations, infrastructure investments and strategic partnership with Russia under the “Near-Arctic State” label threaten the Arctic governance. Following the war in Ukraine and isolation by the West, Russia has also increased its military and economic engagement in the Northern Sea Route. Another major addition would be NATO’s expansion through surveillance and infrastructure development from Finland and Sweden’s accession. All combined has led militarization of the Arctic and heightened concerns over Arctic peace and environment among the Arctic Council members and observer states.

Third, takeaways from Norway’s chairship of the Arctic Council. During its chairship, Norway focused on “The oceans, climate and environment, sustainable economic development, and people in the North.” Amid the war in Ukraine and Arctic council members pausing the cooperation under Russia’s chairship, Norway became the bridge between the stalled Arctic Council cooperation and focused on maintaining the operations of the council without disruption, setting the stage for a smooth transition to Denmark. Its initiatives on wildfire management, Arctic Ocean Research Cruise II helped in circumpolar collaboration but the absence of full participation of all Arctic Council member states remained a major gap. It showcased the limitations of the Arctic Council to address the geopolitical issue.

What does this mean?
Responding to the growing geopolitical tensions and maintaining the Council’s operations a challenge to Denmark. The chairship comes at a critical time, which calls for strong diplomatic efforts to tackle the high-level geopolitical challenges. The Arctic cooperation remains stalled without Russia’s participation and Denmark holds the responsibility to manoeuvre the polarized Council. Apart from this, its internal dynamics with Greenland (call for independence) make it more complex for Denmark to have a stronger voice in the Arctic governance. At the external, responding to increased military activity of NATO, US-China rivalry and Russia’s aggression while balancing the Indigenous rights and preserving the consensus among the Council would be the major challenges for Denmark. 
 

About the author 
Padmashree Anandhan is Project Associate at NIAS

Click here for PDF Version

Print

Bookmark