I have manageable reservations. In essence, I think it becomes a net gain versus a net loss equation. In this particular case, my personal stance is to not include China as a permanent observer. They are not voting members. They are not a member state. They don't have a voice around the table when the senior Arctic officials or the ministers get together for discussions.
They will participate in working groups. They will bring funding, in theory at least, to the permanent participants, which will hopefully allow RAIPON, the Russian peoples, when they come back in six months, to have some stable funding as well.
The concerns, of course, on the part of some of the permanent participants, for whom I am not speaking, is that having more bodies, having more organizations around the table will dilute their voices. What allows the Arctic Council to work is the Arctic eight member states, with the permanent participants representing northern indigenous groups around the table, front and centre, when you're coming to the point of reaching consensus and coming up with common positions.
The concern is that more voices will drown out.... Okay, that makes it sounds like it would be a net loss, having countries like China there. My view is that they bring capacity. They're already active in the Arctic. They have interests. If they're closed out—