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