Canada’s second chairmanship has come at a time in which Canadian officials can justifiably be proud of the growth and success of the organization they were so instrumental in creating. The challenge for the council ahead comes from the determination of most of the Arctic states to allow the development of oil and gas resources in the Arctic. This is beginning to be challenged by many outside of the region, a movement that is led by various international environmental organizations. The growing resistance and radicalization of groups such as Greenpeace, among others, are beginning to have a substantial impact on the ability and willingness of the Arctic states to co-operate. This is developing into a particularly sensitive issue for Canada, as one of the primary objectives of the Canadian chairmanship is to improve business activities and opportunities among the Arctic states.26 The development of oil and gas resources within the region is one – if not the most – economically significant economic activity that will take place in the Arctic. However, much of the success of the Arctic Council to date has involved actions directed to understanding and protecting the Arctic environment.

The world’s attention is currently focused on the Greenpeace crew that boarded a Russian Arctic oil rig in the Pechora Sea in September 2013. The 30 Greenpeace crew members were arrested,27  and they currently await trial on charges that initially included piracy. If found guilty of these charges the protestors will face substantial time in Russian prisons. The Netherlands has become involved because the Arctic Sunrise, the vessel used by Greenpeace to board the Russian rig, bears a Dutch flag.28 As a result, the Netherlands government has been attempting to seek the release of the Greenpeace protesters through the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. Russia has publicly stated its acceptance of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) as an instrument to resolve differences pertaining to the Arctic, among state parties.29 However, it has refused to submit the case to the tribunal’s authority, on the grounds that its sovereignty protects its right to prosecute individuals that would violate Russian laws within Russian sovereign territory.30 This raises questions over Russia’s commitment to the use of UNCLOS for resolving conflicts in the Arctic. There is also considerable unease among most Western states over the charges that have been brought before Russian courts, including in Canada.

But this is not the only challenge that Canada faces. The actions of the Greenpeace protesters in Russia are not the first of their kind. Any concern that Canadians may have in regard to a perception of Russian heavy-handedness will soon dissipate. What is being overlooked is the fact that the Danish navy was required to use a similar level of force to remove and arrest Greenpeace protesters when they boarded an oil rig off the west coast of Greenland in 2011.31 The protesters, using tactics that were identical to those used against the Russians, were protesting oil exploration in the waters surrounding Greenland. Two members of Greenpeace who boarded the oil rig there were charged with trespassing and breaching an exclusion zone around the rig. They were fined 20,000 DKK (C$3,780), deported from Greenland and barred from re-entry for one year.32 In both the Russia and Greenland cases, Special Forces within the military seized and arrested the individuals. Both Russia and Greenland used naval forces to position their personnel in order to respond.33

It is expected that Exxon Mobile and BP will begin exploratory drilling in the Beaufort Sea and the Mackenzie Delta in 2014. It is also assumed that Shell will begin exploratory drilling off of Alaska’s northern coast, in the Chukchi Sea, at the same time. It is likely that Greenpeace and/or other environmental groups will attempt to board these drilling rigs. It is equally possible that both American and Canadian officials will take similar actions to remove and arrest those protesters. The types of charges and penalties that will be brought against such actions will depend on the nature of the protests – should they occur. While any charges will be more in line with the Danish response than the Russian, that will not be known until the protests happen. It is possible that Greenpeace will chose not to repeat its protests, but this seems unlikely. That would send a message that the Russian charges against the Greenpeace crew have successfully intimidated the organization and caused it to back down.

The challenge for officials in both states is their ability to remove and arrest Greenpeace protestors. Canada and the U.S. have fewer ice-capable vessels dedicated to law enforcement than the Russian and even the Danish governments. Canada and the U.S. will need to rely on a limited number of coast guard vessels to physically prevent the protesters from approaching the rigs, or they will have to deploy law enforcement agencies or military force to remove the protestors. Law enforcement agencies in Canada and the U.S. are not trained to board oil rigs at sea and confront protesters. Both countries will probably have to rely on military forces that have training in such dangerous situations.

Denmark, Russia, Canada and the U.S. will ultimately use military force to protect their right to develop resources within the Arctic region. For Canada, this complicates its efforts to further promote the role of the Arctic Council and to shift the council’s attention to include economic activities, beyond its current focus on the environment. It is probable that, given Norway’s development of its own oil resources in the North Sea, the Norwegian government would be sympathetic to the position of the Arctic four.34 But this will be on a private and not a public basis, given the political sensitivity of this issue.35 The fact that Finland and Sweden do not have Arctic maritime areas means that these two countries will not likely be vocal supporters of the right to develop oil and gas in the region. They may prefer to appear sensitive to environmental causes. This means they will likely remain neutral on the issue. Iceland, which has also been pushing for a greater economic focus within the Arctic region, may be sympathetic to the four Arctic states that are producing, or hope to produce, oil in the region.36 Beyond the state members of the Arctic Council, it is probable that the council’s permanent participants will be divided on the issue, depending on how much they are affected, either positively or negatively, by oil development in the region.37 There are several environmental groups, such as the World Wildlife Fund, with observer status on the council.38 While such organizations have not been engaged in the type of aggressive activities taken by non-observer groups like Greenpeace, they will likely be sympathetic to calls for better protection of the environment, by not developing oil resources in the region. Some state observers may also oppose the development of oil resources there. The United Kingdom seems to be developing a posture that is highly skeptical of the economic promises, and it is more concerned about the potential ecological risk to the region.39 While some may consider such a posture hypocritical, given the UK’s own development of oil resources in the North Sea, this still seems to be the country’s position. Voices within the EU are also beginning to take a position opposed to drilling, although in 2012, the European Parliament voted down a proposal to support a total ban on oil drilling in the Arctic.40

The focus that the protesters have given to Arctic oil development will make it more difficult for the Arctic Council to openly deal with what is becoming a negative political issue. It will be hard for the four Arctic states to publicly present a common front on their respective rights to develop their resources in the region in face of the environmental risks. The states will not necessarily be deterred from acting; they simply will not want to provide a forum where such intentions can be publically assailed.

It therefore seems unlikely that the Arctic Council will be able to address the issue of oil development in the Arctic. If it is seen as supporting oil drilling in the region some will consider the council no longer able to protect the environment. It is also likely that the individual Arctic states will want to guard their unilateral sovereign right to develop these resources within their national territory. The Arctic Council may also be unwilling or unable to deal directly with the most significant economic issue in the region. This means that Canada’s goal of refocusing the council on economic issues will be still-born. Or it may only be able to deal with minor economic activities. One of the most important issues facing the region will remain off the agenda, and it will not benefit from the co-operative approach that the Arctic Council could provide.

This issue may not be totally avoided by the council.  It has attempted to address elements of it, for example through the development of guidelines for responding to oil spills in the region.41 But will it be able to move beyond the development of such guidelines? Canada has already found it difficult to respond to the public campaign among European countries protesting against the seal hunt. It has been able to keep the EU out of the Arctic Council because of this issue. But the move by Denmark/Greenland, Russia, Canada and the U.S. toward the exploitation of oil resources in this environmentally sensitive area will undoubtedly lead to increasingly aggressive public campaigns launched against these four states by the environmental movement. The Canadian experience with protesters organized against the Keystone XL Pipeline and Northern Gateway Pipeline provides a clear indication of the persistence, scope and determination of the international environmental movement. Equally important, many Canadians will be sympathetic to the protestors’ actions, and will not support a government intent on developing oil resources in the Arctic. This will become one of the most critical issues facing Canadian officials.

The question becomes how Canada will balance the conflicting requirements of strengthening the Arctic Council, protecting its right to exploit its Arctic resources, protecting the fragile Arctic environment, and responding to the actions of environmental groups opposed to northern development.

Canada will need to proceed delicately in the last remaining year of its Arctic Council chairmanship. It must ensure that the efforts of the council to protect the environment are promoted. It will also need to respond to an increasingly vocal opposition to the development of oil resources on a large scale in the Arctic region. Canada must be prepared to act when the inevitable protests are launched against exploratory drilling in its waters. It will need to ensure that Canadian laws are upheld, once it has given permission to oil companies to proceed with exploration. It will also need to respond to greater public awareness, and opposition to, of the action taken to remove, arrest, and prosecute Greenpeace protesters in Russia. It is going to be difficult for the Canadian government to avoid being portrayed in the same light as the Russian government. At the same time, it must ensure that any effort to distance its actions from those of the Russians do not damage Canadian efforts to co-operate with the Russian government in the Arctic. It will want to be seen as assertive and in control of its Arctic region, as well as sympathetic to the concerns of the environmental groups, while not supporting their actions. This will be difficult but not impossible. It is time for Canada to bring to the Arctic Council the need to deal directly and openly with such sensitive political issues. After all, this is the role that Canada proposed for the council in the first place.

Rob Huebert is an associate professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of Calgary. He is also the associate director of the Centre for Military and Strategic Studies. He was a senior research fellow of the Canadian International Council and a fellow with Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute.

In November 2010, he was appointed as a director to the Canadian Polar Commission Dr. Huebert has taught at Memorial University, Dalhousie University, and the University of Manitoba. His area of research interests include: international relations, strategic studies, the Law of the Sea, maritime affairs, Canadian foreign and defence policy, and circumpolar relations. He publishes on the issue of Canadian Arctic Security, Maritime Security, and Canadian Defence.

His work has appeared in International Journal; Canadian Foreign Policy; Isuma- Canadian Journal of Policy Research and Canadian Military Journal.. He was co-editor of Commercial Satellite Imagery and United Nations Peacekeeping and Breaking Ice: Canadian Integrated Ocean Management in the Canadian North. His most book written with Whitney Lackenbauer and Franklyn Griffiths is Canada and the Changing Arctic: Sovereignty, Security, and Stewardship.

He also comments on Canadian security and Arctic issues in both the Canadian and international media.

CDFAI is the only think tank focused on Canada’s international engagement in all its forms - diplomacy, the military, aid and trade security. Established in 2001, CDFAI’s vision is for Canada to have a respected, influential voice in the international arena based on a comprehensive foreign policy, which expresses our national interests, political and social values, military capabilities, economic strength and willingness to be engaged with action that is timely and credible.

CDFAI was created to address the ongoing discrepancy between what Canadians need to know about Canadian international activities and what they do know. Historically, Canadians tend to think of foreign policy – if they think of it at all – as a matter of trade and markets. They are unaware of the importance of Canada engaging diplomatically, militarily, and with international aid in the ongoing struggle to maintain a world that is friendly to the free flow of goods, services, people and ideas across borders and the spread of human rights. They are largely unaware of the connection between a prosperous and free Canada and a world of globalization and liberal internationalism.

In all its activities CDFAI is a charitable, nonpartisan organization, supported financially by the contributions of foundations, corporations and individuals. Conclusions or opinions expressed in CDFAI publications and programs are those of the authors and speakers and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Institute staff, fellows, directors, advisors, or any individuals or organizations that provide financial support to CDFAI.