IASC 25 years - Page 25

Regional Board level, where only representatives of gional problems and other questions affecting the relevant national organizations of Arctic countries common interests of the Arctic countries. The pur- held positions.21 pose of the Board was to ensure that the activities of IASC were consistent with those interests. The However, the relationship between the Council and Regional Board had no right of veto in this explana- the Regional Board was still rather loose. Although tion of the Canadian officer.24 they liked the new text much better, the quatre exclus were not completely satisfied with two Founding Meeting in Resolute Bay founding articles that dealt with the position of the Finally, after all these discussions about the found- Council and the Regional Board in the decision-mak- ing articles, the founding meeting of IASC took ing process, and had questions about participation place on 27 August 1990 in Resolute Bay, NU, Can- in the review meeting of IASC. Finally, as a demon- ada. In addition to representatives of the national stration of good intentions to include them from scientific organizations of the eight Arctic coun- the beginning, the four wished to be represented tries, representatives of the science organizations as observers at the founding meeting of the IASC.22 of France (Claude Lorius), the UK (David Drewry), Poland (Maciej Zalewski), the Federal Republic of Ger- The four submitted these points as an aide-mem- many (Gotthilf Hempel), and Japan (Takao Hoshiai) oire to the officers representing the American were invited to attend the meeting as observers.25 government and asked them to discuss the points The science organization of the Netherlands was with the seven other Arctic countries. The four ex- very disappointed not to be invited. The explanation pected much from the USA and the American ne- of the inviting government of Canada was that the gotiators. On 8 February, a démarche was executed Netherlands had not participated in the preceding in Washington, whereby articles C4 and D1 of the discussions in San Diego in 1986 and that there founding articles were seen as the key problems, were no seats left on the plane to Resolute Bay.26 but participation of all members of the Council in At the meeting in Resolute Bay, some general prin- the review meeting was also put forward. The text ciples were adopted. First, it was agreed that IASC of the démarche finished with the wish of the four would be an international NGO of national scientific to participate in the April meeting of the Rovaniemi organizations; second, no decisions would be made Environment Initiative in Yellowknife, Canada, which on behalf of states; third, no judgment would be was confusing. Linking these two completely differ- passed on the value of specific scientific research; ent activities made the political situation more com- fourth, IASC would try to avoid competition with plicated yet, and did not strengthen the position other