The Arctic Council is not a treaty organization; it's a forum. Notionally it works on environmental protection and sustainable development, but its main benefits have been co-operation with Russia, frankly, and including the indigenous voice. The question is how can it go forward with Russia, or not go forward as it is. I made my thoughts on that clear. How can it go forward with indigenous voices is the next step, if there was agreement that something has to change with Russia.
There are six permanent participants that are not exactly representative of all indigenous peoples and all northerners, but those six groups have some international indigenous coverage. They are very influential. Although it's a normative...there are no votes. They don't get a vote, but no one votes. All the senior Arctic officials are very respectful and inclusive, and appreciate the perspective of the indigenous people.
You can't just go into NATO, you can't just go into the International Maritime Organization, because those don't have the same level of indigenous participation. That's why retaining something of the Arctic Council is worthwhile. From my perspective, we have either an A7 with exactly the same rules of procedure and exactly the same declaration, or we take this opportunity to create a new A7.