The shape of the table, the shape of the Arctic

Some 40 years ago the shape of the table in Paris was a major obstacle to negotiations that promised to bring an end to the Vietnam War. The combatants could not agree on which parties were entitled to be represented at the peace talks or the appropriate design of the furniture that would facilitate their discussions. Then, as now, the diplomats knew that those who had prime access to the table were likely to be the chief beneficiaries of the negotiations. A seat at the table would allow a party's particular concerns to be voiced and framed in a manner consistent with its overall understanding of the issues at stake. It also meant that each party represented at the table would be acknowledged to have an equally significant role in implementing any agreement reached. To a large degree, the current status of Arctic negotiations resembles much of what was going in Paris four decades ago. The various parties interested in the future of the region cannot seem to agree who should be invited to the negotiations, who should sit prominently at the table, and who should have the responsibility for identifying the key issues at stake and the mechanisms for resolving potential conflicts between the parties. As the recent diplomatic discussions in Chelsea, Québec, suggest, the path toward securing a framework for future Arctic negotiations may be as complicated as that which confronted the American and Vietnamese negotiators. One might have thought that such a diplomatic impasse would be an unlikely situation for regional discussions that, until recently, had been held up as a model of international creativity and inclusiveness. The initial spurt of Arctic negotiations that coincided with the end of the Cold War and the rise of the Arctic Council had convinced many observers that a new spirit of circumpolar collaboration and cooperation was the dominant theme in regional relations. Efforts to address important environmental challenges in the north brought on by global climate change seemed to be on the upswing. So too were initiatives designed to give the peoples who lived in the region greater representation and a larger voice in determining their own futures within the Arctic. Yet despite such progress, the most recent race for resources within the Arctic raises some serious questions as to whether the international community can truly forge a consensus on how to establish an effective international governmental framework for the region. What appears to be emerging a