258
Arctic Yearbook 2013
Nord
except for perfunctory statements of support for such undertakings and brief presentations of Saami
cultural traditions at official sessions and gatherings of the Council. This limited attention to
indigenous issues, along with a seeming lack of recognition of the continued Saami opposition to
resource development in its own northern lands, left the Swedish Chairmanship efforts rather flat-
footed and hollow sounding. It also brought about one of the few protests against the Swedish
government‘s policy in the Arctic when the representative of the Saami Council formally rebuked
Sweden at the Ministerial Meeting for its actions in support of the expansion of mining activities in
Norrland.
15
Attention to gender and gender-equality issues also received only modest attention during the
Swedish Chairmanship. This was despite the fact that these issues had been prominently mentioned
in its originally proposed agenda for action. A few specific research initiatives were begun under the
auspices of the Social Development Working Group (SDWG), but very little of a concrete nature
was completed by the end of the Swedish Chairmanship‘s term. This was a bit of an embarrassment
as the discussion of gender and gender equality issues had become a hallmark of Swedish domestic
politics and the nation‘s foreign policy for the last several decades. In fact, it was rather remarkable
that the whole discussion of gender at the Kiruna session was largely consigned to a single panel
discussion held during the day prior to the Ministerial Meeting. Although it was proved to be one of
the highlights of that day‘s presentation of research findings from the Council‘s working groups and
task forces, it was sadly, scheduled late in the afternoon, as the last order of business, ahead of what
turned out to be a busy evening of final decision-making. As a consequence, few Arctic Council
participants attended this session or heard what proved to be an insightful discussion of some of the
gender issues and challenges in today‘s northern communities.
16
Another type of limitation to the performance of the Swedish Chairmanship arose from internal
debates and divisions within the body itself. As noted above, Sweden had to devote a significant
amount of time and energy to the resolution of the ongoing observer question. The growing
centrality of this issue was reflective of a significant amount of discord among the membership over
whether non-Arctic states should have any voice in charting the future development of the region.
This question was particularly politically charged as some of the Permanent Participants saw the
inclusion of such delegations as a threat to their own unique status within the body. Other members
of the Arctic Eight, including Canada and Russia, worried that the admission of major players like
China, Japan and the European Union might threaten their own sovereign economic and political
rights in the Arctic. The Swedish Chairmanship found its efforts in other agenda areas constrained
by a lack of forward movement on the observer question. For instance, it could not conclude work
on the revised rules of procedure for the Council until it better knew what final direction the
membership was going to take in welcoming new observers and the extent of the roles they might
play.
Similarly, the Swedish Chairmanship‘s struggle to enforce greater uniformity in procedures and
greater coordination among the working groups and the SAOs was hampered due to an ongoing
debate within the organization as to where the center of gravity of the body should be found.
Several of the working groups - especially those which had their origins in the AEPS era – felt that