I'm trying to make the opposite argument, which is to say it's about the direction from the Arctic Council down to the national level. I'm not suggesting that we are supposed to be coloured by taking national issues up to the Arctic Council. What I'm suggesting is that the process of decision making and policy-making comes after the Arctic Council produces research results. A lot of that policy-making, I believe, should be done at the state level, as it has always been done.
What I'm worried about is “mission creep”, if you will, at the Arctic Council. It becomes expected to reach into issues that are properly within the competency of the nation state.