In its National Strategy for the Arctic Region, the U.S. government identifies the state of Alaska as one of two key partners. Further, President Barack Obama's more recent executive order establishes a coordinating body within the federal government to liaise with Arctic partners, and fundamentally with the state. Partnership has yet to be defined, however, and with the U.S. chairmanship of the Arctic Council, it is all the more crucial.
The extent to which federal and state interests in the Arctic align will determine the success of this chairmanship, and possibly of those to come. These next two years depend on the social license, support from and active engagement of the region. Alaska community, business and political leaders, as well as its subject matter experts and traditional knowledge holders, bring to the work of the Arctic Council meaningful, realistic and helpful input that are key aspects of partnership.
Alaska's participation in the Arctic Council processes and at least nominal support are important to the United States as it sets forth its priorities and conducts the business of this consensus-based, intergovernmental forum. Other nations, and their states, territories and local governments, are watching and evaluating this process as increased human activity, change and attention affect decision-making in the Arctic.
Alaskans have their own role to play in this partnership, including not expecting too much from Arctic Council activities. The council chairmanship is an opportunity for U.S. leadership, but the council doesn't make policy nor does it allocate resources. Alaskans can welcome chairmanship activities in the state, reminding visiting delegations -- including those from Washington, D.C. -- of the reality, richness and responsibility in Alaska's Arctic. We can celebrate and promote the region where we work, subsist, and play, and that we call home.
Alaskans understand by now that the council is comprised of eight Arctic nations and "Permanent Participants" representing indigenous peoples in the region, but as an intergovernmental forum it is consensus-based, only the issues relevant to all rise to the surface. That means many Alaska issues don't fit directly within its scope of authority or the interest of eight different nations. Beyond this, many Alaska issues need to be dealt with domestically, and not at an international level, by federal agencies responsible for them.
That is why throughout the chairmanship of the Arctic Council the state must remain diligent in its attention to the National Strategy for the Arctic Region's Implementation Plan, and actions carried out domestically by federal agencies. This is where the state will see the most material difference and where Alaskans can have the most impact, hopefully. This is where we can expect more.
It is really a two-part strategy that is mindful of the equities in the region. At the council level, Alaskans have a limited ability to participate actively in all aspects, but an opportunity to ensure that Alaska is well-represented and better understood by visitors during this time.
Domestically, we can leverage the attention on the council to follow up on the National Strategy for the Arctic Region, as federal agencies carry out their responsibilities in the implementation plan. Within this effort the state can demand more meaningful inclusion in decision-making processes, transparency, and tangible benefits to Alaskans.
Ultimately, this administration and federal agencies can use this time to foster a better working relationship with the state. The council is oft-cited as a "model of cooperation" -- that must equally apply to relationships with domestic constituencies. Alaska's proposed Arctic Policy is an opportunity to strengthen U.S and state interests, and seek alignment. In fact, the state should be prepared to offer parallel but separate work that highlights its own priorities in the Arctic.
The state's commitment to balancing resource development and environmental protection, promoting inclusive decision-making, and ensuring the health and safety of Alaskans is a clear signal to the rest of the U.S. that the interests of a nation and a state rest on the well-being of their people.
Nils Andreassen is executive director of the Institute of the North, an independent nonprofit organization whose mission is to inform public policy and cultivate an engaged citizenry. The institute has a legacy working on Arctic infrastructure priorities and policies that serve to strengthen and connect northern communities.
The views expressed here are the writer's own and are not necessarily endorsed by Alaska Dispatch News, which welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, e-mail commentary(at)alaskadispatch.com