Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

The new scramble for the Arctic

By Keith Suter - posted Friday, 14 January 2011


A by-product of the speculation over climate change has been the suggestion that global warming will enable greater access to the Arctic’s considerable resources.

This could trigger a new scramble for territory, similar to that of the 19th century’s scramble for Africa. The Arctic used to be of interest mainly to science. Now increasingly it is a matter of political, economic and legal interest.

Part of the Arctic’s political complexity comes from the fact that the Arctic is not one single landmass (unlike, say, Antarctica).

Advertisement

The region contains both the mainly ice-covered Arctic Ocean and some of the surrounding land, including all of Greenland (a Danish territory) and Spitsbergen (administered by Norway), and the northern parts of Alaska, Canada, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia and Sweden.

The Arctic Ocean is the planet’s smallest and least explored ocean.

There are even three ways of defining the Arctic’s “boundary”

  • northern limits of strands of trees on land (the treeline)
  • the line of average July temperature of 10 degrees C (50 degrees F)
  • the Arctic Circle which is based on the latitude 66 degrees and 33 minutes North

The region is also very diverse in terms of landscape, ranging from pack and drift ice to rugged shores, flat coastal plains, hills and mountains.

Indigenous peoples have lived within the region for thousands of years. They tended to live a quiet, fairly nomadic, isolated, independent-minded subsistence existence. They had minimal contact with the outside world.

Advertisement

The neighbouring countries gradually expanded northwards. The Russians, for example, reached Siberia in the 16th century. They now control the largest single amount of Arctic territory (ahead of Canada). They were particularly interested in the fur of the local animals. The Russians were rarely welcomed by the Indigenous peoples.

The Russians sold Alaska to the US in 1867. There was no consultation with the Indigenous peoples. The US suddenly became a player in Arctic politics (although Alaska remains the US’s largest state and the third least populated one).

The Arctic remained on the periphery of world politics. Ironically its bleakness was a source of security: neighbouring countries knew that they were at least safe from land invasion from the north.

The Arctic became a frontline in the Cold War. With the USSR’s acquisition of both long-range aircraft (later missiles) and nuclear weapons, the US co-operated with its allies to create an elaborate “early warning system” across the region. A World War III would have been fought with bombers and missiles flying over the Arctic.

Now for the first time in its history, the Arctic looks set to play a larger role in world politics.

First, the Cold War is over and relations between the Arctic countries are no longer so frosty. There is a new willingness of the countries to come together to form regional fora.

Probably the most important of the new organizations is the Arctic Council formed in 1996. It’s a high level government forum to provide a means for promoting co-operation, co-ordination and interaction among the Arctic States. It consists of Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden and the US.

Second, there is the continued speculation over climate change and the potential melting of the polar ice caps. Half a century ago the polar ice caps were twice as big as they are today.

Warmer Arctic weather creates new opportunities for wealth but also new dangers and new dilemmas. On the one hand, some scientists are worried that northern Russian permafrost (which keeps the soil like concrete) may start to melt. This could release hitherto condensed carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons like methane gas. This would considerably worsen the climate change situation. On the other hand, assuming they can avoid the dangers associated with the change in permafrost, some Russians hope that northern Russia will be a new source of wealth.

Third, the world is moving into an era of increasing scarcity of resources. The Arctic is assumed to have vast untapped resources. For example, the Arctic may hold nearly as much as a quarter of the world’s unexplored oil and natural gas. There may also be other forms of wealth, such as diamonds, gold, manganese, nickel lead and platinum (much the same as is already found in the surrounding countries).

Fourth, as could be expected there has been an increased presence by the neighbouring countries, if only to reinforce their territorial claims. For example, in August 2007 Russia sent a submarine to plant a Russian flag 4,000 metres underneath the North Pole. Russia now has more military vessels in the region since the end of the Cold War in 1991.

Fifth, Indigenous Peoples were overlooked in the previous scrambles for territory. But now Indigenous Peoples globally are bouncing back. They have not been completely exterminated (though they often came close to it). They are now more adept at getting organized.

The peoples in the Arctic region are able to exploit new communications technology to share ideas on common concerns. For example, as with Indigenous Peoples around the world, they tend to have poorer social indicators than the local non-Indigenous populations, such as on life expectancy, education and health.

A common factor among Indigenous peoples globally is that they tend to lose out in the race for development. For example mineral exploration may see the destruction of their traditional hunting grounds. This will be a risk in the Arctic region as the mineral development increases.

There is also a greater international sympathy for the plight of Indigenous peoples which means that they have supporters in the international community. They may also obtain support from environmental non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that have concerns about the environmental implications of mineral development.

Finally, there are the knock-on effects in the rest of the world if the Arctic is developed. The vision that inspired European mariners for centuries – a quick route to Asia – is now available.

The North West Passage is now open to shipping for some of the ice-free summer months: through the top of Canada, along the northern coast of Alaska and down through the Bering Strait. As the planet warms and the ice declines, so that window of navigation will get wider. This will have implications for the other long range routes (such as around Africa) and through the Panama and Sues Canals.

It would also have favourable implications for climate change: less fuel will be used to transport goods. The North West Passage would also avoid the growing risk of piracy off the Somali coast and across the Indian Ocean.

Another wider political implication will be the eventual increase in power of both Russia and Canada. Assuming that the mineral development can flourish, then both will get a benefit to their national wealth and this will give both increased economic and political leverage.

Russia already controls the world’s largest reserves of natural gas and there is concern that West is becoming too dangerously reliant on Russia as an energy supplier. The West could become vulnerable to Russian pressure because of this reliance.

For the US domestically, Alaska could assume greater economic and political prominence and may lead to an increased migration into the state (and so greater representation in the US House of Representatives). The much ridiculed former Governor of Alaska and Vice Presidential hopeful Sarah Palin may yet have the last laugh.

But all this speculation of increased exploration, development and wealth depends on getting the basic issues of Arctic governance sorted out. As long as the Arctic was on the periphery of world politics, the legal and political confusion over its status was of little significance.

That’s now beginning to change.

The struggle to achieve the highly successful Antarctic regime as the world’s first nuclear-weapon free zone and demilitarized zone of peace proves that it is possible to sort out governance issues over wilderness areas. But this can be done only after a great deal of trouble.

The Arctic countries are only at the beginning of the process.

Under current international law, the countries ringing the Arctic are limited to a 200-mile maritime exclusive economic zone (EEZ) around their coasts. But the first complication is that the law – the UN 1982 Law of the Sea Convention – is still not ratified by the US (due to nationalistic concerns in the US Senate). The US is therefore largely absent from the international negotiations on the implementation of the treaty.

A further complication arises from the advances of technology in exploiting the continental shelf. Beyond the coastal EEZ of 200 miles, there is the possibility that a country – which has accepted the treaty - can claim further territory if its own continental shelf extends beyond the 200 miles. With the advances in technology, the Arctic countries are anxious to determine just how far out their own continental shelves may extend.

There are various ways in which the Arctic’s mineral could be divided up. The most idealistic way would be to allow the mineral wealth under the ocean beyond the strict EEZs to be developed for the benefit of all humankind through some form of international agency, such as the UN International Seabed Authority.

A second option would be simply to divide the ocean into national control via longitudinal lines drawn down from the North Pole.

A third approach would be some form of division taking into account the proportionality of the lengths of the various coastlines (for example 15 per cent of Swedish territory is in the Arctic Circle but it has no Arctic coastline, while Iceland is considered an Arctic country even though its landmass is outside the Arctic Circle).

A common concern in all these options should be the preservation of the environment and respect for the rights of Indigenous Peoples. Additionally, in keeping with recent developments in diplomacy, it would be important for international NGOs to also have a say in how the options were considered.

In short, the Arctic is entering a new era of great complexity. But we managed to achieve a safe system for running Antarctica - and so could yet do so the same for the Arctic

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

6 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Dr Keith Suter is a futurist, thought leader and media personality in the areas of social policy and foreign affairs. He is a prolific and well-respected writer and social commentator appearing on radio and television most weeks.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Keith Suter

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Keith Suter
Article Tools
Comment 6 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy