Arctic organisations are nations' special darlings. But who's whose?

Arctic governmental organisations do not hold much leverage in relation to their member governments. However, what makes the organisations worthy of study is the arena that they provide for the interplay of governments and their national interests. It is argued in this essay that the organisations/cooperations often function as an instrument – and thus as a ‘darling’ – of one particular government. The Barents Council, for example, is Norway’s darling; the EU Northern Dimension is Finland’s, while the loose Arctic-5 cooperation is Denmark’s baby. The Arctic Council, by contrast, is nobody’s darling, which is one of the reasons for its unrivalled status. Moreover, various national vested interests are being served by these organisations. States are members in order to collect information, for instance, or to meet with high-profile great power representatives. Also, smaller states may practice dependency spreading: instead of negotiating bilaterally with Russia or the US from an inferior position they can multilateralise issues in an Arctic organisation. Finally, some policy recommendations are offered as to how Denmark should navigate in the Arctic organisational wilderness.

Internationale organisationer, såvel i Arktis som andre steder, bliver holdt I et fast greb af medlemslandenes regeringer. Hvad der imidlertid gør dem til interessante studieobjekter er de arenaer, de stiller til rådighed for samspillet mellem regeringerne og deres respektive nationale interesser. I dette essay argumenteres der for, at organisationerne ofte fungerer som instrument – og derfor som yndling eller favorit – for én bestemt regering. Barentsrådet er f.eks. Norges yndling, EUs ’Nordlige Dimension’ er Finlands, mens det løsere ’Arktis-5’-samarbejde er Danmarks baby. Arktisk Råd skiller sig ud ved ikke at være instrument for noget bestemt land, hvilket er en af årsagerne til dets ubestridte status som den vigtigste organisation i Arktis. Herudover er der forskellige mere diskrete nationale interesser, der tilgodeses af medlemskabet af disse organisationer: at samle informationer, f.eks., eller at mødes med højprofilerede stormagtsrepræsentanter. For småstater ligger der en værdi i afhængighedsspredning: i stedet for at forhandle bilateralt med Rusland eller USA ud fra en underlegen styrkeposition kan de multilateralisere sagerne i en arktisk organisation. Til sidst i dette essay formuleres nogle policy-anbefalinger om, hvordan Danmark mest hensigtsmæssigt kan navigere i det organisatoriske vildnis i Arktis.