It may serve as a model, for sure.
There's an oil spill response instrument being developed under the auspices of the Arctic Council. It's the Arctic states and other states that are the signatories to the agreement. It's not an Arctic Council agreement; it's not governed by the Arctic Council per se. There is a certain collaborative spirit that came out of it to suggest that the Arctic Council, in certain areas like search and rescue, can help to facilitate agreements.
My message is to set the expectation that the Arctic Council should be doing that—that's its primary goal, and that's the primary metric of determining whether the Arctic Council is relevant and successful. But that is problematic.
In fact, there are of lot of things the Arctic Council does on a regular basis. There is monitoring; there is core research that informs not only Arctic issues but also international issues and has been very useful in setting international agendas on things like persistent organic pollutants and mercury. I don't want to throw out the baby with the bathwater by saying this model is the one that should be followed in all situations. But there's certainly some good spirit there.
A search and rescue treaty shows that a lot of the investments in military capabilities have a purpose that is very civilian friendly. It helps to create a stable region that's going to be attractive to investors. And the spirit that animates most of the Arctic countries is one of recognizing that collaboration and cooperation is going to get us further than all of this sword-waving that's been going on in media circles.