Can the Arctic Council survive the Trump administration? Probably not. Here’s why
The havoc caused by the new American administration has been devastating on a wide range of fronts. We are quite possibly witnessing the end of the western rules-based international order that has lasted since the end of World War II.
While Trump’s attention hasn’t yet shifted to the Arctic Council, it should be apparent to all that this is just a matter of time. When he does, the outcomes will be devastating. He will probably take three steps that will combine to either gut the key works of the Council, or possibly end it altogether.
First, Trump’s elimination of international aid demonstrates his policy of selfish isolationism. His decision to stop much of the assistance provided under the USAID program shows that he has no inclination to understand the benefits of a cooperative multilateral system, or a desire to continue a policy that every U.S. president since Kennedy has supported.
In addition, he has openly criticized NATO and the ICC, along with many of the U.S. economic agreements with other nations. In both his first term and now his second, Trump has shown a clear lack of support for international organizations and multilateral agreements. Specifically, he seems intent on either ending American participation or upending the agreements solely for American benefit.
Trump has already demonstrated that even if he doesn’t withdraw from the Arctic Council, he would actively gut some of the most important achievements in line with his own goals. First, he doesn’t “believe” in climate change. During Trump’s first term, the Arctic Council ministerial meeting in Rovaniemi in 2019 failed to produce a final declaration for the first time since the organization was created. This was because the U.S. delegation – under the leadership of Secretary of States Mike Pompeo – objected to the term “climate change” or any reference to the Paris Accord. There is nothing to suggest that the American position on climate change will be altered. If anything, it will probably get more strident.
Reshaping Society
Trump has also moved quickly to end American programs that are in any way associated with the issues surrounding Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI). It is highly unlikely that as part of this process to reshape American society, his administration would support any of the important initiatives supporting the northern Indigenous Peoples under the Arctic Council. His administration has had no qualms about ending the support that the U.S. had provided to the developing world, so he will almost certainly be unwilling to continue to provide any support of the Permanent Participants or any of the Arctic Council programs that support them.
Third, Trump has directly attacked two of the core state members of the Arctic Council. Since his second term began, he has repeatedly threatened to “take over” both Greenland and Canada. While some at first thought he was just joking, Trump has continued to say that these are his intentions. He has begun to take active steps, through the threats of a trade war to critically weaken Canada in order to make it more amendable to “joining” the U.S. Again, even if he doesn’t move to directly destroy the Arctic Council, how could Canada and Denmark work with the U.S., knowing that the Americans are actively moving to weaken or even cripple them as a state?
Fourth, the one Arctic state that Trump has attempted to improve relations with – Russia – remains also problematic for the Arctic Council. Trump’s effort to work with Russia will make the existing issues that the Arctic Council had with Russia even more difficult. Trump has already called for the Russians to be readmitted to the G-7. If he doesn’t move to end the Arctic Council, he will undoubtedly call for any sanctions against Russia to be eliminated and for the country to be fully integrated.
At the same time he is actively moving to directly be involved in assisting Russia to complete its conquest of Ukraine. In a move that is reminiscent of the conquest of Czechoslovakia through the capitulation of the U.K. and France to Germany in 1938, Trump has begun direct negotiations with Russia without the involvement of the Ukrainians. Putin now knows that it has the support of Trump.
As a result, there is every reason to believe that Russia will continue with its acts of aggression against its neighbours. This includes both Sweden and Finland, who both chose to join NATO. Putin has always made it clear that it was the possibility of Ukraine joining NATO that was one of the reasons for his decision to launch his war of aggression against Ukraine in 2014.
Scorched Earth Policy
Ultimately, this means that the Arctic Council now faces two terrible scenarios. The first is that in his scorched earth policy toward multilateralism, Trump will either move to end the Arctic Council or at least remove the U.S. as a member. He may also carry out his threat to ensure that both Canada and Denmark also cease to be meaningful members of the Arctic Council. If he truly does intend to take over Canada, it won’t even be a state. Even if he only means to weaken and reduce Canada to a vassal state, its ability to participate will be damaged – if not eliminated.
Likewise, if the U.S. takes over Greenland, Denmark’s main rational for being a member of the Arctic Council will be eliminated. Assuming that somehow the Arctic Council survives an American withdrawal, and the U.S. follows up its threats to control Greenland and Canada, the Council would have only the active membership of Finland, Sweden, Norway and Iceland.
Even if the U.S. remains in the Arctic Council, its current actions means the gutting of some of its most important missions, The U.S. won’t support actions to eliminate the causes of climate change, and it is very unlikely to support the Permanent Participants. Outside of the Council, perhaps the Coast Guard forum will continue. But even here Trump is having an impact. He has already fired Admiral Linda Pagan, the Commandant of the USCG. American officials have suggested it was because of her commitment to DEI policies.
Even more dangerously, this variant of the Arctic Council would include a U.S. whose policies are now at complete odds with the previous actions of the Arctic Council. It would also include a Denmark that has either lost Greenland to the U.S. or will need to take action to prevent this. It will include a Canada that is being continually weakened by American action, and is either actively trying to stop an American takeover or has become a vassal state to the U.S. It will also include a Russia that is being increasingly supported by the U.S. and has been given the right of conquest over Ukraine. Furthermore, if Ukraine was conquered for considering joining NATO, the future of both Finland and Sweden (which did actually join NATO) will undoubtedly be even more problematic for Russia.
These are dire times for the Arctic Council. It is hard to think of a way to maintain its many successes in supporting an understanding of the impact of climate change on the Arctic. It has also played an important role in supporting a greater awareness of the northern Indigenous Peoples in the region. And perhaps most importantly, it has served as the principal means of promoting a peaceful and harmonious international regime of cooperation.
All of this is now at risk. Perhaps Trump won’t think that the Arctic Council is worth his attention, and it can somehow remain under the American radar until the next presidential election. But as many have said in the past, hope is not a strategy.
