For centuries, the Arctic region received little attention for the simple reason that it was too hostile an environment to merit any attention. But due to climate change and prospects of harnessing untapped oil, gas and mineral resources, it is now receiving wide attention and creating unexpected and complex new challenges. The climate change induced warming of Arctic is setting the stage for ‘cold war’ to compete for who rules ‘No Man’s Sea’ surrounding the North Pole. It may not get the fate of its polar opposite — Antarctica which was demilitarised and dedicated to science because of its strategic insignificance.
The fragile Arctic is warming in the most unpredictable way. As the US takes over the chairmanship of the Arctic Council, countries surrounding this region are bracing for new challenges and rivalries. In September 2013, Greenpeace ‘Arctic 30’ activists were arrested and put on trial in Russia following a protest against Arctic offshore oil drilling by Gazprom. Their protest was part of a larger concern for the fate of the Arctic environment, in view of the gold rush to exploit its resources. But what has evoked renewed strategic interest in this region is Russian President Vladimir Putin’s reported order for larger military presence in the Arctic in response to Canada’s claims.
The impact of climate change on Arctic is clearly visible in the form of declining sea ice, melting glaciers, thawing permafrost, and changing landscape. The Arctic ice levels are now at the lowest covering a much smaller area than 30 years ago and it is predicted that, if melting continues at the current rate, the Arctic will be free of ice all year round by 2030. Climate change has been recognised as a ‘threat multiplier’ having the potential to intensify the already established threats to security. It can increase the competition for scarce natural resources, territorial loss and claim over new territories, militarisation of strategic natural resources, distrust among nations and increased pressure on global governance. The Arctic issue with its complexity of simultaneous cooperation and tension has emerged as a major case study of climate change and security.
Though the melting of ice caps has evoked worldwide concern, for the ‘big players’ of the region like Russia, Canada, Denmark, Norway and the US, it is, however, a great opportunity to claim sovereignty over Arctic to exploit its resources. They now consider Arctic as their ‘Northern Frontier’. In August 2007, during an expedition by a Russian Arktika submarine, a Russian flag was planted on the seabed of the North Pole which created alarm among other nations eyeing Arctic resources. The US termed it ‘land grab’ while Russia had sent more warships to patrol Arctic waters. A major reason behind the present gold rush is a report by the US Geological Survey which indicated that about 30 per cent of the remaining world reserves of natural gas and some 10 per cent of the oil are in the Arctic.
According to the Survey, the area north of the Arctic Circle has an estimated 90 billion barrels of undiscovered, technically recoverable oil, 1,670 trillion cubic feet of technically recoverable natural gas, and 44 billion barrels of technically recoverable natural gas liquids in 25 geologically defined areas. These resources account for about 22 per cent of the undiscovered, technically recoverable resources in the world. About 84 per cent of the estimated resources are expected to occur offshore. The melting ice has also opened new sea routes like North-West Passage (US and Canada) and the North-East Passage (Norway and Russia), promising a paradigm shift in the maritime transport. The maritime routes connecting Tokyo with New York will be 4000 km shorter by 2030, thereby opening more commercial opportunities. This has made coastal states to struggle to control new maritime routes even though some argue these straits are international.
Norway was perhaps the first country to show interest in Arctic because of the fact that its oil fields in the South are running dry and the North provides a viable option to maintain petroleum production. After the flag planting episode, the Russians claimed that the Lomonosov Ridge, running north from Siberia, was an extension of the Siberian continental shelf legitimising their claim on Arctic sea bed as required by the UN Convention of the Law of the Seas (UNCLOS) of 1994. According to the Russian Arctic strategy, the utilisation of the North-East Passage as a transport route is among Russia’s strategic priorities. But in view of possible confrontations, it considers Arctic the new ‘fourth’ frontline also. The US has some real commercial interests and considers the North-West Passage an international strait which is at odds with the Canadian view point which considers it its internal waters.
In the absence of an exclusive international treaty governing Arctic affairs, the primary mechanism for inter-governmental cooperation is the Arctic Council formed in 1996 as a ‘soft law’ regional multi-stakeholder institution with eight member states (Canada, Russia, Norway, Denmark, Iceland, Sweden, Finland and the US), six permanent participating parties (indigenous peoples’ organisations), and observers (now 12 including India). It basically advises and carries out research but has no mandate on political and military affairs and most importantly, lacks enforcement mechanism.
The other group, which is trying to dominate the Arctic scene, is the ‘Arctic Five’ comprising Arctic littoral states — Canada, Denmark, Norway, Russia, and the US. This grouping while adopting the Ilulissat Declaration on 28 May 2008, committed themselves to resolve all disputes within the UNCLOS framework, which ensures state control over the Arctic Ocean and right to exclusive economic zone 200 nautical miles out to sea. But at the same time, all the five members are re-mapping the Arctic seabed and submitting their proposals to the UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS) with the expectation that their claims on extended continental shelves will be accepted. Though managing Arctic has become a costly affair, the issue has gone beyond strategic considerations to national pride for many.
But in this gold rush, the larger concern for the inevitable ecological damage is missing and that is precisely what ‘Arctic 30’ wanted to convey. It is unlikely that the claims over Arctic will snowball into a major conflict in the near future. The UNCLOS is obsolete in view of new Arctic realities. Moreover, it is yet to be ratified by the US Senate. An inclusive Arctic governance established by an Arctic Treaty under the UN is most desirable. Any framework needs to focus: protection of Arctic environment, its indigenous population; sustainable exploitation of resources and multilateral governance.