March 25, 2010 |  9 comments |  Print this Article | E-Mail Your Opinion  

Topic The EU Stakes its Claim in the Arctic

Shakti Prasad Srichandan: There is currently a race between the great transatlantic powers for North Pole resources. The Arctic’s future will be determined by collective action of the world community. The EU will play a key role not only in terms of security policy but also in terms of environmental protection and the fight against climate change.

Due to climate change, the polar ice caps, are melting at an alarming rate. The untapped oil, gas and mineral resources like gold, silver, iron and most importantly diamonds situated in the Arctic region are quickly changing its geo-strategic importance and can potentially affect international stability including European security interests.

The receding polar ice has made this region very attractive for fishers and opened up new sea routes for trade like the Northwest Passage and the Arctic Bridge thereby making it an important area of interest. Though the melting of both ice caps is a cause of concern for many, for the "big players" such as the coastal states (Russia, Canada, Denmark, Norway and the US), it is however a great opportunity to claim the sovereignty over the region.

The race for North Pole resources is already underway. In August 2007, during an expedition by a Russian Arktika submarine, a Russian flag was planted on the seabed of the North Pole and created alarm among other nations eyeing Arctic resources as well. The US termed it as a "land grab" while the Russian government is still planning to send warships to patrol Arctic waters. In May 2008, governments of Canada, Denmark, Norway, Russia and the United States released the Ilulissat Declaration regarding the issue of Arctic sovereignty, thus committing themselves to the protection and preservation of the fragile marine environment of the Arctic under existing legal framework. There is definitely a race for North Pole resources but what is even more interesting is that all the countries concerned want to resolve this issue under an existing legal framework rather than create a new one.

EU leaders increasingly recognize climate change as a fundamental challenge and preparing for greater coordination of the EU foreign and security policies and institutions. In June 2007, the High Representative and the European Commission pointed out in a joint report seven key concerns related to climate change: conflict over resources, disappearance of coastal cities and critical infrastructure, loss of territory and border disputes, environmentally-induced migration, situations of fragility and radicalisation, tension over energy supply, and pressure on international governance. The report further argues that climate change is not just a threat in itself - it is "a threat multiplier which exacerbates existing trends, tensions and instability." Addressing those threats are an important part of EU's preventive security policy. The report also identifies vulnerable regions like the Arctic which can directly or indirectly threaten European security. In November 2008, the European Commission released a communication entitled ‘The European Union and the Arctic Region' which marked an important first step towards an EU Arctic policy, identifying environmental and geopolitical challenges.

Though many global players are trying to get hold on Arctic resources, there seems a consensus among them to safeguard the bio-diversity of the region. Ecological change in the Arctic arising from the combined effects of climate change and development will have significant regional and global consequences. Some of them are already visible. These changes go far beyond the financial capacity of any single northern nation to mitigate adequately. Cooperation among nations is essential to safeguard the bio-diversity of the Arctic. Therefore, the Arctic's future will be determined by the collective action of the world community. The EU will play a key role not only to secure its geo-strategic interests but also to safeguard the fragile eco-system of the Arctic.

 

Shakti Prasad Srichandan is a senior PhD Scholar at the Centre for European Studies, School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi.

Related Materials from the Atlantic Community:

The Arctic region has topped the agenda at atlantic-community.org last  week with the Theme Week. We invite you to participate to the final Atlantic Memo and write some more comments here.

  • 4
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this Article! What's this?

 
 
Comments
Jakob  Schirmer

March 25, 2010

  • 1
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Maybe it isn't that interesting "that all the countries concerned want to resolve this issue under an existing legal framework rather than create a new one." To put it bluntly: what else is the North Pole than the northern part of the sea? Thus, the existing law of the sea should be sufficient (ahead of all UNCLOS). Rather than establishing a new regime, the existing law of the sea should be implemented by all coastal states.
 
Juliette  Dixon

March 26, 2010

  • 3
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Thank you very much for your comment Mr. Schirmer. Though I would like to ask how can other states, or actors such as the EU, persuade the United States to ratify this crucial convention? This is the one remaining obstacle to the good implementation and functioning of the already existing law of sea.
 
Member deleted

March 26, 2010

  • 1
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Well Mrs Dixon,

Thats maybe the reason on why even the Bush Administration witnessed a velvet gloves policy on the issue ;-)

In my opinion it is about what the EU is willing to pay in order to gain a glimpse of a chance to save its stakes. Russia already waved to the world through its strategic bombers.
 
Olga  Kolesnichenko

March 26, 2010

  • 3
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
I agree with author that EU should and even must lead in terms of Arctic problem. First of all nobody in the world needs the confrontation and the new reason for war. Nobody. So, how the international community might avoid that situation? Only if international community would bring the Comprehensive Approach together. And I think that we shouldn't afraid to create a new, entirely new compact of Arctic. It should be free sea-zone.
I was very ashamed of Russians who had been 'planting' flag on the seabed in Arctic. It isn't about real European values. That behavior was stupid. They put the flag and what they expect farther? If somebody threw it on or put another? It is unconstructive way.
I think that both issues - Arctic and climate change - are the new opportunities for globalization. First real step towards globalization, towards collective action. All countries even Australia, South Africa, India, China at cetera have to be allowed into the Arctic. It concerns lack of resources in the very fast growing world, in particular Asia-Pacific region.
And next step - we should solve the new problem, lack of territory in Asia-Pacific region. Either we want Third World War or we should together solve the problem. For example, how long women in China can endure the demographic limite 'one family - one child'? If we imagine what international community should do - open the borders creating free zone or kill the babies?
So, we can't put flag on the face to closing eyes and say - it is our resources and nothing concerns to us at all.
 
Jakob  Schirmer

March 27, 2010

  • 1
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Of course, Ms. Dixon, the question is, when the US will ratify the UNCLOS. At least they recognise the convention as a codification of customary international law (except Part XI concerning deep seabed portions and mining). Any prediction would be astrology but Sectretary of State Clinton called the ratification a priority for her. We will see.
 
Unregistered User

March 30, 2010

  • 0
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Why not create a new suvereign country in the teritory? Something like Utopia :)
AvY
 
Unregistered User

March 31, 2010

  • 1
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Interesting that this discussion can take place, focussing on the EU's concerns about Russia and the former (and I stress, former) Bush adminstration, with little or no regard for position of Canada, which, after all, has the best claim to most of the region.
Tags: | Arctic |
 
Unregistered User

April 4, 2010

  • 2
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Surely we should be thinking, not only of the Artic - only sea, but also the Antartic, which has a lot of land.
The United Nations is surely experienced enough, yet not powerful enough because nations have starved it of money for 50 years, to oversee the 'development' or not of these two areas.
Individual companies and countries can surely bid for sites, which will only be exploited under suitable supervision. The cash engendered could be used to strengthen the United Nations, and enable it to further control the arms industry, and reduce the national armies and stockpiles of nuclear and conventional weapons.
Only when we have a truly international police force and system of international justice, will the world be albe to develop its human and animal resources so that we prevent the disaster that may well happen in this century as a result of our greed and exploitation that has happened in the last two centuries.
 
Ximena  Benavente

November 11, 2010

  • 0
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
what is unbelievable is that after depleting so many regions looking for rich natural resources countries are more committed to fulfill their self-interest rather than addressing climate change concerns. This is why the Copenhagen Summit was such a failure in establishing a binding environmental agreement. Nobody wants to profit less.

The race for the North Pole is just a small proof of the future wars. Next ones will be on water, more oil implying off-shore drilling in West-Africa, Brazil and Russia. and why not the race for the Moon, after all the US has a flag there and if Russia claims the North Pole after such infamous act, then why should anybody stop the US?

 

Create Comment

Type the characters shown in the image below into the textfield.
Captcha

What are tags?