The Barents Observer published on 13 March 2014 an article “Why the Barents cooperation needs a makeover” written by Mr Atle Staalesen. Having read this writing I consider it necessary to give a reply to a number of claims presented by the author.
I start by reminding the reader of same basic facts ignored in the article mentioned. Any discourse on “the Barents cooperation” tends to become messy because in Norwegian parlance this expression is used most often when is meant “bilateral cooperation between Norway and Russia” whereas in other member states of the Barents Euro-Arctic Council (BEAC) the same term denotes “multilateral cooperation in the Barents region” which is cooperation between Finland, Norway, Russia and Sweden. For sake of accuracy one should add that the intergovernmental Barents cooperation does not cover sea areas even though the media often describes developments relating to gas and oil deposits in the bottom of the Barents Sea. Therefore we have actually three interpretations of the same term.
The International Barents Secretariat (IBS) was established in 2008 at the initiative of Norway by an intergovernmental agreement “to provide technical support for the multilateral coordinated regional activities within the framework of the BEAC and the Barents Regional Council”, the latter being a forum of governors in the northernmost counties of Finland, Norway, Russia and Sweden. In other words, the IBS was set up as an administrative auxiliary body for the practical support of the multilateral Barents cooperation on a daily basis. The IBS is expected to cooperate closely with the biennially rotating BEAC chairmanship and not to pursue any policies of its own that could be perceived as contradicting the aims set by the chairmanship and its course of action. Hence it is inappropriate to suggest that “the IBS quickly failed to meet expectations (whose, what kind of expectations?) and is unable to take on a central role in regional relations”(sic). The author seems to put the IBS in a role that it does not actually have. The IBS does not have the same kind of function as the bilateral Norwegian Barents Secretariat and does not have money to provide for projects.
“The Barents success story” is a refrain but a quite relative one depending on the point of departure. Undoubtedly there are some fields of activity that have reached good results but this does not hold true across the board in the multilateral framework. Economic cooperation has not come up with the goods given the vast natural resources of the Barents region. There are certainly several reasons for this to be the case, i.e. many lucrative projects are by far too big and can be dealt with bilaterally. The occasionally lukewarm interest of the Russian regions in the Barents cooperation has caused a great deal of speculation whether it reflects a certain policy or disappointment due to tinkering with issues of secondary importance. The presence of the Russian governors at the meetings of the Regional Council has been regarded as an indicator of efficiency in the Barents cooperation.
It seems that the multilateral Barents cooperation is being somewhat overshadowed by the Arctic Council that has proven vital for the Arctic states, incl. the USA and Canada. This may be partly explained by the still pending delimitation of some parts of the continental shelf in the Arctic, an issue of considerable interest to a number of Arctic states. Another fact is that the degree of national interest of the BEAC member states in the Barents cooperation varies. It remains to be seen how things in the land-based Barents cooperation may change once big gas and oil exploration projects like Shtokmanovskoye get started.
Basically, the article in the Barents Observer lets the reader understand that the Norwegian Barents Secretariat is willing to devour the IBS that would also scrap the multilateral character of the BEAC when a “permanent leader” would take on the leading post instead of diplomats that seem to be looked askance at in some quarters. It remains unclear whether the author is occupied with thoughts of his own or whether he wants to launch a trial balloon on behalf of someone else.
