Atlantic Community:Open Think Tank Article "The Arctic Region: Great Game or International Cooperation?"

The Arctic Region: Great Game or International Cooperation?

K. S. Yalowitz & R. A. Virginia: The economic downturn is lifting pressure off further harmful resource exploitation development in the Arctic region. Will the international community however seize this unexpected opportunity to tackle environmental challenges? US commitment to UN multilateralism is key.

Climate change in the Arctic is creating unexpected and complex new challenges. There is concern regionally and internationally that melting Arctic sea ice could trigger a new “great game” of international power politics as nations race to extract an abundance of newly available natural resources. Ironically, the current global economic downturn has slowed the pressure for development of Arctic energy and mineral resources, and it’s giving the international community breathing space to deal with potential environmental security issues.

Recent estimates from the US Geological Survey indicate that about 30% of the remaining world reserves of natural gas and some 10% of the oil are in the Arctic region. These resources are costly and environmentally dangerous to extract. With demand having fallen due to the economic downturn, international conflict over the extraction of these reserves is unlikely, since most of these reserves are located in nationally controlled Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs). Even development of the massive Russian Shtokman gas reserves has been postponed. Ultimately, energy security concerns will reignite Arctic oil and gas development.

The countries with military/security interests and naval capacity in the Arctic are Russia, Canada, Norway, Denmark, and the United States. Russia's recent focus on territorial claims could be disruptive, but Russia agrees that reducing Arctic pollution and increasing environmental security is crucial. Over the past two years, Canada has been building a presence in the Arctic, but they do not have significant military capacity there. The key US issue is whether the Northwest Passage sea route is an international strait, as the US claims, or Canadian internal waters. Even though the 2009 US Arctic Regional Policy listed protecting US national security interests as a primary goal, the US Navy’s Arctic Roadmap stresses peaceful cooperation, scientific research and transparency; it does not foresee military or security threats in the region.

International Arctic governance has been led by the Arctic Council, an organization of eight Arctic states, six permanent Participating Parties (indigenous peoples' organizations), and observers. The Council has played an important role in focusing attention on environmental and climate-related issues. Even though the Council lacks an enforcement mechanism, and security and political issues are not within its mandate, the large Arctic states prefer to stick with the Council rather than create a new Arctic Treaty. They believe the UN Convention on Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) provides the added legal framework for managing Arctic territorial disputes. UNCLOS is not perfect; it leaves large portions of the Arctic Ocean unclaimed and some smaller zones have the potential for overlapping claims. But the 2008 Illulissat Declaration of the Five Arctic Coastal States declares UNCLOS to be the mechanism for resolving boundary and extended continental shelf claims issues. US adherence to UNCLOS is essential for American participation in this process. Agencies such as the International Maritime Organization are indeed available to deal with specialized issues such as maritime traffic, water pollution, search and rescue, and fishing.

Large-scale damage to the Arctic environment from transportation accidents, energy development, and pollutants from the South are at the center of debate. They pose a much greater immediate threat to the Arctic ecosystem, human health, and national priorities than classic security issues. A number of bi-national agreements, regional regimes, and international treaties (e.g., Stockholm Agreement on Persistent Organic Pollutants) provide a level of protection, but a comprehensive strategy for sustaining the Arctic environment, including the key global concern of climate stabilization is lacking. The Arctic Council is best suited for providing the science needed to assess Arctic policy, but the Council’s influence at Arctic and international levels needs to be strengthened. A permanent Arctic Council secretariat could provide that focus and integration. The interests of the EU, China and Japan as well as the indigenous peoples also must be more effectively represented.

Developing a sustainable future for the Arctic Ocean and its surrounding ecosystems and peoples is a global issue, and there is a broadly felt need for high-level policy attention to these concerns. The future of the Arctic resides in finding a sustainable balance between national interests and global well-being. While the economic downturn permits, it is essential that the international community take action to secure the future of the Arctic environment. UNCLOS and the Arctic Council remain the best vehicles to deal with these issues.

Kenneth S. Yalowitz, Ambassador (ret.) is the Director of the Dickey Center for International Understanding at Dartmouth College, New Hampshire. Ross A. Virginia is a Myers Family Professor of Environmental Science and the Director of the Dickey Center Institute of Arctic Studies at Dartmouth College, New Hampshire.

Related Material From Atlantic Community:

I like this Article! What's this?

Comments

March 11, 2010

Salvador Santino F Regilme, University of Osnabrück, Germany, Gold Contributor (77)

I like this comment! What's this?

Using a social constructivist point of view, concerned stakeholders in the Arctic issue must be able to make sure that the perceived problem is being mainstreamed in the international media. Intensive and multi-disciplinary studies about the Arctic issue must be further encouraged and financially-supported as many of the perceived impacts of the melting Arctic sea ice may even go beyond the borders of the these countries involved in the Arctic Council. It may be hypothesized that the information on the environmental impacts of such melting ice in the Arctic may be too limited and unreliable that any international policy may be a manifestation of the classic problem of "information asymmetry". In fact, the way that the Arctic problem was framed was based on the standpoint of Western powers, but the environmental impacts may even reach the frontiers of the Southern states or the developing states. Although it seems to be very intuitive to conceive of multilateralism as the prime policy paradigm to be adopted in the Arctic problem, one must also be reminded that the apparent dualism of great game or international cooperation may be considered irrelevant (as may be gleaned in many global problems in the 21st century). The recent facts and events of global politics, in fact, suggest that modes of international cooperation and multilateral institutions are embedded within the cobweb of power-driven interests of actors and stakeholders involved; and thus, making international cooperation to be a "great-game-in-disguise". Hopefully, the Arctic problem may refute such hypothesis, and that, power-driven interests of state actors may be sidelined for more communitarian and inclusive-oriented values.

March 13, 2010

Informed Lawyer

I like this comment! What's this?

See: "What Goes Around, Comes Around: How UNCLOS Ratification Will Herald Europe’s Precautionary Principle as U.S. Law", Working Paper and Abstract available online, Social Science Research Network (SSRN),Lawrence A. Kogan, Esq., CEO of the Institute for Trade, Standards and Sustainable Development (May 5, 2009); [1] 7 SANTA CLARA INT’L L., Lawrence A. Kogan, Esq., CEO of the Institute for Trade, Standards and Sustainable Development (October 7, 2009).

accessible online at:

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1356837 ;

www.itssd.org/SCJIL%20Kogan%20Draft.pdf

"Polar Sea Ice Melts Away in Time for Antarctic Easter Surprise", Institute for Trade, Standards and Sustainable Development (ITSSD) (April 2009), accessible online at:
http://www.itssd.org/Polar%20Sea%20Ice%20Melts%20Away%20in%20Time%2...

"Ecosystem-Based Management": A Stealth Vehicle To Inject Euro-Style Precaution Into U.S. Regulation", Lawrence A. Kogan, Esq., accessible online at: http://www.wlf.org/Publishing/publication_detail.asp?id=2087 .

March 17, 2010

Benjamin Waldron, Atlantic-Community.org, (7)

I like this comment! What's this?

@Santino, thanks for your comment!

You make a great point about "information asymmetry" potentially complicating efforts to create international arctic policy. Especially since there are disparities in data-collection capabilities among the Arctic nations, ensuring that Arctic stakeholders have access to the same information is key to the formation of any multinational arctic policy.

The Arctic council would seem to provide a logical forum for such information-sharing, though i do not know the extent to which this takes place... Since you mention the need for more intensive studies in the Arctic, perhaps the asymmetry you are referring to is the quality of the information itself?

March 19, 2010

Salvador Santino F Regilme, University of Osnabrück, Germany, Gold Contributor (77)

I like this comment! What's this?

@Benjamin, thanks.

As it may be necessary in all cases of effective international public policy, one of the key considerations is to ensure that all stakeholders have access to reliable and accurate information regarding the problem. Considering that you have already conceded that there "disparities" in data-collection capabilities among the Arctic nations, I argue that "access" to the same information may not be an issue (if I understood it correctly) but making sure that data-collection, research analysis and research dissemination should be a product of "pooled capabilities" of all the Arctic stakeholders. But taking into account that The Arctic Council is an intergovernmental body, one must ensure that the research efforts needed to address the multi-faceted Arctic problem must also involve the civil society, the epistemic community and even non-Arctic states (possibly on an observer status).

Thus, in response to your last question, when I said "asymmetry", I am referring to the quality of information. As for instance, climate change research is now in the limelight for being criticized as to the rigor of the research methods used by the UN Panel on Climate Change. Likewise, rigor and active participation by the broader epistemic/scientific community must be prioritized.

Moreover, the recent implicit claim to the Arctic issue made by a Chinese Admiral (see http://the-diplomat.com/2010/03/09/china%E2%80%99s-arctic-play/) made the Arctic problem seemed to be not an exclusive problem of traditionally-construed Arctic nations, rather it points us if it is really a question of a broader sense of global governance. With this mind, I suppose that apparent recent entry of China into the picture may cast doubts into the legitimacy of the Arctic council or, indeed, if there is really a need to bring this issue into a more inclusive intergovernmental (yet with other non-governmental actors) body.

March 22, 2010

Jakob Schirmer, Georg-August-Universität Göttingen, Gold Contributor (134)

I like this comment! What's this?

"UNCLOS and the Arctic Council remain the best vehicles to deal with these issues." - This is the clue! Pundits should not draw "wild west" scenarios in the high north but should realise that there are mechanisms of international law that could canalise the abutting ambitions. However, UNCLOS needs US backing!

March 30, 2010

Elizabeth Deheza, The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy

I like this comment! What's this?

All the polar coastal states but the US are signatory countries of the UNCLOS and to date, Russia and Norway have already submitted their respective claims to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS) to expand their territorial rights beyond its Exclusive Economic Zone. The U.S. even though it visualizes the Arctic as a priority for national and homeland security, can still not assure unilateral rights and jurisdiction in offshore zones, protect U.S.
maritime research interests, and use strategic waterways for U.S.
military forces as it is still needs to ratify the Law of the Sea Convention to validate its claims in the Arctic and put to an end a freezing status quo to take part in important international policymaking bodies to maintain a firm grip at decision-making tables and show its commitment to multilateralism. The U.S. highlights the importance of keeping the Northwest Passage as a strait used for international navigation, a point that is shared by the EU, but unequivocally irritates the Canadian government. At this stage, it makes little difference if the U.S. endorses the Ilulissat Declaration, since by being outside the legal framework, the U.S. has its hands tight in protecting and enhancing its sovereignty and security interest in the High North.

As already mentioned in the article, a growing interest in the region of non-Arctic nations such NATO, the EU, China, and Japan add pressure to the existing Arctic Council for greater engagement of other major actors interested in R&D, the accessibility of the new sea routes, and the partition of the natural resources. It can not be denied that these non-Polar actors and bodies can find ways and strategies to move their pieces on this Arctic Chessboard.

If we look at how the EU could eventually pursue the U.S. to ratify the UNCLOS, we can say that the U.S. and the European Union are well aware that a stable and durable partnership between the two is a central tenet of U.S. and EU's foreign policy. The challenges of the High North could make the U.S. and the EU join forces, especially in issues related to the environmental changes and interests that are crucial for both actors. The EU could pursue the U.S. to ratify the UNCLOS by continuing to support a policy of freedom of navigation of the Northwest Passage and convince the U.S. the benefits it forgoes by marginalizing itself from the possibility to adopt a legal framework that will allow the U.S. to validate its claims in the Arctic. In the same way, the EU could seek for a greater support from the U.S. in order to acquire a permanent observer seat in the Arctic Council, an organization that can not remain impermissible to the outer world and the growing number of non polar actors. The EU is fully committed to the UNCLOS, the Arctic Council, and the Maritime International Organization for the reinforcement of shipping codes. The U.S. feels at ease having a say in Arctic matters from behind the scenes, but it is time that such an important player in the Arctic Circle commits to a legal framework and sets the tone for a greater collaboration and coordination in the region rather than an every man for himself situation.

Partners

Partner Communities Reference Links Partner Links

User of the day

Arjun Johannes Menon

Member since
November 16, 2009

Poll

Should NATO intervene in Syria?

Yes

Yes, but only with a mandate from the UN Security Council

RSS

Issues Navigator

Global Challenges

Strategic Regions

Domestic Debates

Tag cloud

March 11, 2010 | 6 comments | Print | E-Mail Your Opinion

The Arctic Region: Great Game or International Cooperation?

Community

Jobs / Internships

Call for Papers

Atlantic Events

Partners

User of the day

Poll

Should NATO intervene in Syria?