Overview

Last week, the Russian Security Council released details of how it will conduct its Arctic policy through 2020 and beyond in a document entitled, “The fundamentals of Russian state policy in the Arctic up to 2020 and beyond.” (original document here, in Russian). Developing the Arctic is one of the Kremlin’s priorities, which is constantly underscoring its view that such a strategy will encourage overall national socio-economic development.

At first, the document emphasizes the need to preserve the Arctic as a “zone of peace and cooperation,” bringing to mind the state of affairs in Antarctica, where the Antarctic Treaty System has guaranteed the continent’s non-militarization and dedication to science and research. The Russian document also touches upon sustainable development and environmental conservation.

Yet the fact that the Russian Security Council - a body charged with defining and engineering Russian national security policy - released the document is revealing, as it demonstrates that Russia’s main priority in the Arctic is military development rather than socio-economic development.

Economic Development

Certainly, Russia sees the Arctic as a major source of revenue, with the document stating that the Arctic must become Russia’s “top strategic resource base by 2020.” Holding up to 20% of the world’s hydrocarbon deposits, it could be a huge boon to the Russian economy. In 2007, oil and gas revenues accounted for 64% of Russian export revenues and 30% of all FDI (Energy Information Administration statistics).

In an interview on March 27 with Le Figaro, a French right-leaning newspaper, president of Shtokman Development AG Yuri Komarov was asked whether the future for Russia lies in offshore development. He replied, “Absolutely. And this will lead to economic windfalls for the entire High North in Russia. Look at Norway. Between what it was thirty years ago and what it is now, there is a huge difference. Today, the Norwegians sell their savoir-faire. It’s an area in which Russia could also become competitive.”

Transportation Development

Aside from developments in gas and oil, Russia also hopes to profit from commercial sea routes. The document states that Russia will attempt to make the Northern Sea Route a wholly integrated national transportation route in the Russian Arctic. Currently, the maritime passage is currently ice-free only two months out of year. But with temperatures warming, it could soon prove to be a more viable route for shipments between Europe and Asia, as distances would be cut by 4,000 miles.

However, if legislation currently underway passes, many restrictions will be placed on shipping through the canal. Russian ships would be able to restrict foreign military vessels from entering, expel ships that are not following regulations (such as environmental standards), and levy fees.

Northern Sea Route (red) versus Suez Canal route (blue)

The multilateral, cooperative tone of the first few paragraphs changes abruptly when the document turns towards the issue of military development with the statement, “There is no question of militarization of the Arctic.”

Western news outlets reported that Russia plans to create a military force that will be “capable of guaranteeing military security under various military and political situations.”

However, as reported by RIA Novosti, a Russian state news agency, Admiral Vyatcheslav Popov, head of the Russian Parliament’s Commission on Maritime Policy and former commander of the Northern Fleet, nuanced Russia’s military plans. In regards to the Arctic Group of Forces, which will be the name of the new military unit, Popov observed,

“This is not about the creation of a new strike force. The military component [of the Arctic Group of Forces] will be optimized to accomplish new tasks. The main focus will be on tasks performed by border guard units.”

In any case, Russia plans to strengthen its coast guard and upgrade its equipment and infrastructure. The document claims that the main purposes for such military development are to “combat terrorism at sea, combat smuggling and illegal migration, and protecting aquatic biological resources.” But it’s difficult to imagine pirates and drug traffickers wanting to brave the icy waters of the Arctic.

Remarks and Reactions

Artur Chilingarov, the Russian presidential envoy for international co-operation in the Arctic and Antarctic, declared that Russia “will not stand still” when it comes to claiming and obtaining resources in the Arctic. He added,

“Look at the map. Who is there near by? All our northern regions are in or come out into the Arctic. All that is in our northern, Arctic regions. It is our Russia.”

Relations between Canada and Russia are growing ever frostier with the announcement of Russia’s plans. Canadian Foreign Minister Lawrence Cannon tried to make clear the distinction between Canadian and Russian goals in the Arctic. He noted that his country’s ambitions go beyond “simple militarization of the Arctic.” However, he qualified his statement by saying, “Sovereignty is uppermost for us. We will not be swayed from that.”

Putting it simply, Cannon asserted that Canada “will not be bullied.”

Foreign Minister Lawrence Cannon.

Russian Ambassador Georgiy Mamedov. Fred Chartrand/Canadian Press

“If someone believes that one will be able to breathe easier in the Arctic if countries that have nothing to do with the Arctic region become involved, in my opinion such a position is totally absurd…This topic will not be included in the agenda of co-operation between Russia and NATO … there is nothing for them to do there.”

Reader commentary on Canadian newspaper articles was varied. While some people zealously attacked Russian plans, others thought that their government’s reaction was overblown. Commenter Jim Jacobson, noting Canada and Russia’s large territorial claims in the Arctic compared to the U.S. and E.U., remarked,

“Instead of bickering with Russians, Canadians have to realise that it is in their interest to side with Russians and to come up with a joint proposal that will leave the rest with a fait accompli, as Canada and Russia together will be unbeatable at the negotiations table by US and/or EU.“

Next week, Cannon will meet with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, where more niceties and barbs will likely be exchanged at the state level.

News links:

“Russia won’t bully Canada in Arctic, Cannon vows” (The Globe & Mail) - Canada

“Russia not bullying Canada over Arctic, its ambassador says” (CBCnews.ca) - Canada

“Russia’s new Arctic force to focus on border protection” (RIA Novosti) - Russia

“Russia sends troops to frozen north to claim Arctic resources” (Times Online) - UK

“Russia’s security council turns to Arctic” (RIA Novosti) - Russia

Today’s edition of the New York Times features an editorial co-authored by Scott Borgeson and Caitlyn Antrim. Borgeson is a visiting fellow on ocean governance at the Council of Foreign Relations, while Antrim is the executive director of the Rule of Law Committee for the Oceans. The crux of their argument is this:

Before the land grab goes too far, the nations most involved should turn the northernmost part of the Arctic into a great park — a marine preserve that protects the polar environment and serves as a center for peaceful, international scientific research.

The two authors reference the Antarctic Treaty System as a precedent for a creating an Arctic park. However, using the ATS as a precedent somewhat overlooks the geopolitical differences between the two regions. While the oil at the North Pole may indeed be a “red herring,” as the authors suggest, governments and private enterprises are still eager to develop the resource. Furthermore, the ATS has worked for so long because Antarctica lacks the Arctic’s natural resources and transit lanes, along with its strategic political and military opportunities.

As a result, it is hard to imagine that even a small region of the Arctic could become a non-militarized zone purely dedicated to science and research. True, the proposed park would not conflict with any of the shipping lanes that are to open up in the coming decades. Yet the park would still likely come up against strong opposition from countries like Russia, which seem bent on claiming the North Pole if even for simple matters of national prestige.

Borgeson and Antrim also remark that U.S. support of such a park would demonstrate to the world that the country is serious about tackling climate change. The U.S. doesn’t really have so much to lose if it were to support it, as the authors observe, because it has no territorial claims to the area. American promotion of a park might even fit in quite well with President George W. Bush’s eleventh-hour Arctic Region Policy directive, which lists that its second-highest policy objective is to “protect the Arctic environment and conserve its biological resources.”

In any case, Borgeson and Antrim’s hopeful vision of a protected North Pole space provides a welcome respite from headlines of scrambled jets and feuding foreign ministers.

Last Monday, the head of the political section of the Russian Embassy in Ottawa appeared in front of the House of Commons Defense Committee. As expected, Dmitry Trofimov had harsh words for the Canadian government’s reaction to the February 18th Russian jet exercise conducted 200 kilometers outside the border between the Yukon and Alaska.

He chastised the government, saying, “Besides the rhetoric being useful for domestic purposes, if there are any … it can hardly be of any help for interstate relations.”

Toeing the Kremlin line, Trofimov added, “From the point of international law, nothing happened. Absolutely nothing.”

Relations have chilled between Ottawa and Moscow in the aftermath of the military exercise, which Prime Minister Stephen Harper treated more or less as a challenge to Canadian territorial sovereignty.

When it came to the issue of the submarine which a group of hunters claimed to have spotted last year in Canadian Arctic waters, however, Trofimov was less upfront. He skirted around the question of whether the submarine belonged to Russia, responding enigmatically with his own question: “What submarine, whose submarine and where exactly?”

The full article can be found here (Globe & Mail).

Trofimov’s answers apparently did not satisfy Canada’s Defence Minister Peter MaKay. The next day in Brussels, MaKay reportedly told Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, “Each time you send planes, we’ll send planes too,” a remark that might only serve to escalate tensions between the two Arctic nations.

The full article can be found here (Montreal Gazette).

For some in Canada, however, worries about the Russian bear encompass more than military affairs. That same day during a session of Parliament, Dennis Bevington, a New Democrat MP representing the riding of the Western Arctic in the Northwest Territories, criticized Bill C-2. The bill includes legislation to implement the Canadian-EFTA Free Trade Act. In particular, it would end over the course of fifteen years the 25% tariff on foreign-built ships entering Canada. Bevington stated,

Shipbuilding will have a place in Canada. We are a maritime nation. We have the largest coastline of any country in the world. A lot of that coastline is in my riding in the Arctic, among the Arctic islands. There is an enhanced interest in the development of arctic resources and arctic transportation and the use of the Arctic as the ice melts. With climate change, we see the opening up of the Arctic Ocean, the arctic shipping lanes and all of that.

It is imperative that Canada stays on top of Arctic marine shipping development. Right now that is in the hands of the Russians. They are the leaders in this field. Where are we? We are nowhere in it. We will enter into the next century of development in the Arctic, where marine transportation will be of the utmost importance, and we will have a shipbuilding industry that we have not supported and that we have not ensured has the opportunity to take advantage of this new and exciting area to work in, the Arctic.

That one factor should give us all pause. It should make us ask what is good for Canada, not what is good for the world, in our new opportunities in the new economy, which will have a very large Arctic base. Is it good simply to abandon the shipbuilding industry to the vagrancies of the world market to the kind of competition that can come not only from Norway and from that direction, but from the Koreans and the Chinese? Is that what we want to accomplish?

The University of Toronto’s Munk Centre for International Studies has posted a national video conference discussing Canadian policy in the Arctic. Presented by the Canadian International Council, the conference, entitled “Use It or Lose It: What’s Next for Canada’s Arctic Policy?”, brought together Canadian politicians, historians, and Arctic experts to discuss the future of the country’s policy in the High North.

Canadian senator Hugh Segal introduced the topic by noting, “The Arctic is something that is far away geographically, but not far away emotionally from our hearts. It’s a huge part of how we view our country.” Indeed, the Arctic is extremely distant from most Canadians, as over 75% live within 100 miles of the American border.

Perhaps the lack of dense settlements in the North, and the perceived vulnerability caused by such emptiness, is what led Dr. Whitney Lackenbauer of the University of Waterloo to remark, “The anxiety about losing or using our Arctic is more revealing of the Canadian psyche than of objective realities. And what it’s done is encourage a disproportionate amount of emphasis on national defense, at the expense of a broader suite of social and diplomatic initiatives.”

To be sure, though the country’s foreign policy is predicated on integrating defense, diplomacy, and development (the 3-D strategy), it appears that lately, defense has been the most visible issue. For instance, the Canadian government has just announced that it will form a new Arctic force that will be able to respond to any incident in the Arctic.

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper

Dr. Lackenbauer continued, “We’re actually very fortunate the Russians are actually insisting that this is not an Arctic race.  They’re saying it’s the western world that’s being alarmist and provocative here; we’re all about international law.” This observation is at odds with the Canadian government’s reaction to the Russian jet expedition back in February.

Dr. Franklyn Griffith of the University of Toronto remarked that Canada should focus on adapting its Arctic strategy to a “3E” approach of elevation, engagement, and enlargement. Elevation would entail the involvement of countries’ prime ministers and presidents in Arctic issues rather than just foreign ministries and NGOs. Engagement would mean improving bilateral relations with the U.S., Greenland, Germany, and China in regards to Arctic issues. Finally, enlargement would concentrate on incorporating non-Arctic countries such as China and Germany into the Arctic Council, with a view that issues like environmental sustainability in the North affect everyone.

Additional topics discussed include militarization, Russia, the history of Arctic international relations, and indigenous people, among many others.

The head of the Political Section of the Russian Embassy in Ottawa has been summoned to appear before the House of Commons Defense Committee on Monday. Canadian Members of Parliament will ask Dmitry Trofimov to shed light on Russia’s military policies in the air and sea near the border of Canada’s claimed Arctic territory.

Last month, NORAD scrambled two Canadian jets to intercept two Russian bombers right outside Canadian airspace. The incident led to a diplomatic spat between the two countries, with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper declaring, “We will respond every time the Russians make any kind of intrusion on the sovereignty of Canada.” In response, the Kremlin denied any wrongdoing, maintaining that they had notified Ottawa in advance of the exercises. Regardless of the legality, Russian flights over the Arctic are not unusual, but this was one of the few times where such a military exercise actually led to a conflict.

Russian TU-160

While MPs will inquire specifically about the Tu-160 incident, they will also ask about Russia’s naval policy in the Arctic waters near Canada. Last year, a group of hunters informed the Canadian Rangers that they had spotted a submarine north of Baffin Island. Canadian Rangers, who work in the remote northern reaches of Canada, are in charge of “protecting Canada’s sovereignty by reporting unusual activities or sightings.”

Complicating the situation even further, two weeks earlier, a mysterious explosion shook the area where the submarine was reported, an incident which still has not been fully explained. The explosion and possible submarine sighting were papered over by the Canadian government, in stark contrast to the brouhaha made over the Russian fighter jet exercise in February. Yet perhaps the parliamentary inquiry on Monday will clarify this series of events, which have demonstrated the increasing difficulties facing Canada as it tries to maintain territorial sovereignty in the Arctic.

Full story: Globe & Mail (Canada)

A team of scientists from Denmark and Canada are preparing to map out the Arctic Ocean with the eventual goal of extending their countries’ territorial reaches. The researchers have already set up a base camp at Ward Hunt Ice Shelf on Ellesmere Island, Canada’s northernmost piece of land. Expeditions will also set out from Greenland, as it is an autonomous province Denmark. Such cooperation between Denmark and Canada draws a contrast with earlier disputes over Hans Island, which both countries claim.

Two types of technologies will be employed to assess the Arctic. The first is sonar surveys by helicopter, which will be done while flying over the continental shelf. The second is gravitational measurements taken by airplane, called “aerogravity.” Scientists will use this technology when flying over the Arctic Sea and North Pole.

Canada and Denmark are hoping that the surveys will provide proof that the North American continent stretches out into the Arctic Sea, encompassing the underwater Alpha and Lomonosov mountain ranges. Canada must submit its Arctic territorial claims to the United Nations Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS) by 2013. A country’s must submit its claims ten years after ratifying the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

Under UNCLOS, a country can claim territory stretching up to 200 miles out from its border. Any claims beyond that area must be submitted to the CLCS for arbitration. The scramble for territory is more heated in the Arctic than most other places in the world due to its rich resources, including oil, gas, and minerals like magnesium and gold. With the ice melting, countries could also control navigation passages.

Denmark has a particular interest in gaining territory both to the north and west of Greenland, the latter of which the country believes will be split evenly with Canada. Last summer, the USGS found that Denmark could potentially be sitting on up to 14% of the Arctic’s oil and gas reserves. But even if the CLCS accepts Danish claims as valid, domestic disputes are likely to erupt over whether the area belongs to Greenland - which is moving ever closer to full independence - or Denmark itself. The National People’s Party in Denmark claims that since the Inuits never settled the northern part of Greenland, they have no right to the profits realized from resources in the region.

© AFP PHOTO / NTV

Russia has also set its sights on the Lomonosov range, along with the Mendeleev ridge. Russian territorial claims stretch all the way to the North Pole and could potentially conflict with Canadian and Danish claims. When Russia first lodged a formal claim for the mountains in 2001, the CLCS instructed the country to conduct more geological research. The next meeting of the CLCS is in 2009, which is also when Russia must finalize all of its territorial claims. In its initial claim, Russia stated that the mountains were natural extensions of the continent, rather than oceanic or submarine ridges.

Map of Russian Arctic Claims. © BBC.

On the contrary, the U.S. disputed this claim, arguing that the “ridge is a free standing feature in the deep oceanic part of the Arctic Ocean Basin, and not … a component of the continental shelf of either Russia on any other state.” Yet in an aggressive move which could be taken as Russia trying to back up its claims, it memorably planted a flag underneath the North Pole in August 2007. The Canadian foreign minister at the time, Peter McKay, joked that “This isn’t the 15th century. You can’t go … just plant flags and say, ‘We’re claiming this territory.”

So the 15th century had flags, while the 21st century has sonar and aerogravity. The technology may have changed, but the desire for territory still lies at the heart of the matter.

Additional links:

“Danish and Canadian scientists set to map Arctic Ocean”, by Randy Boswell, from Canada.com

“Russia’s Claim in the Arctic and the Vexing Issue of Ridges in UNCLOS,” by Mark Benitah, in the American Society of International Law (Nov. 2007).

“Canada’s Legal Claims over the Arctic,” by Robert Dufresne (from the Canadian Library of Parliament)

Detailed map of Arctic claims (International Boundaries Research Unit & University of Durham)

The five signatories of the Polar Bear Agreement will meet for the first time since signing the treaty in 1973 to discuss how to save the polar bear. Representatives from Canada, Denmark/Greenland, Norway, Russia, and the U.S. will attend the The International Meeting Under the Polar Bear Agreement in  Trosmø, Norway, beginning today.

When the five countries signed the treaty 26 years ago, the only threat to polar bears was hunting. The killing of polar bears is still allowed in all of the signatory countries except for Norway and is mostly carried out by Inuit natives. Approximately 700 polar bears, or 3% of the population, is “harvested” every year - an amount the World Wildlife Foundation calls “unsustainable.” Inuits counter that hunting constitutes a vital part of their economy and that the entire bear is used except for the liver, meaning that there is little unnecessary waste.

© Erik Malm.

Even considering the threat posed by hunters, however, the biggest issue on the agenda will of course be global warming.

The World Wildlife Fund’s Direct of Species Conservation Peter Ewins noted that if the world does not deal with climate change, “at least 2/3 of the world’s polar bears will vanish by 2030.” The melting sea ice is the primary cause behind the drop in six of the world’s nineteen polar bear populations, since without ice floes, the bears have no hunting platforms. Ewins added that saving one of the world’s most beloved animals will require “very strong leadership from current governments in the global climate change negotiations.” (Full comment here)

Experts have noted that the most important part of the treaty is:

“Each Contracting Party shall take appropriate action to protect the ecosystems of which polar bears are a part … and shall manage polar bear populations in accordance with sound conservation practices based on the best available scientific data.”

At least on paper, then, the treaty legally obliges the signatories to develop a strategy to save the polar bear. The WWF wants the five countries, along with the rest of the world, to take polar bears into account when considering oil and gas development in the Arctic as well.

Polar Bear Populations. © WWF.

Links to other news articles: The Toronto Star, The Independent, Direktorate for Naturforvaltning (Norwegian)

At the “New Chances and New Responsibilities in the Arctic Region” conference currently underway in Berlin, the European Commission’s representative for Fisheries and Maritime Opportunities outlined the EU’s objectives in the Arctic. In his speech (transcript here, in English), entitled “Opportunities and responsibilities in the Arctic Region: the European Union’s perspective,” Joe Borg reiterated the three key points of the EU’s Arctic strategy, which were originally described in the EU’s Arctic Communication last December:

1. Protecting and preserving the Arctic together with its population
2. Promoting the sustainable use of resources
3. Enhancing multilateral governance in the region

The first point he makes naturally concerns climate change. The international community has, for the most part, come to the consensus that global warming is a problem which requires multilateral solutions. The need to work with a wide variety of actors, including other states, international organizations, and NGOs towards sustainable development in the Arctic has been expressed by many countries, so the ideas Mr. Borg discusses are not anything novel.

On the other hand, the other main point of the first proposition involves indigenous issues — a controversial subject that policy-makers and journalists alike have oven overlooked in favor of a focus on topics such as petroleum deposits, which interest governments, or drowning polar bears, which sell newspapers. Even the Arctic conference in Berlin initially received flak for failing to invite any Inuit representatives.

As a result, the conference invited Aqqaluk Lynge from the Inuit Circumpolar Council. He was also the only Inuit representative to speak at a Danish summit on the Arctic last summer, and has stated that the Inuit people “live on the front lines of globalization.” The negative consequences brought about by modernity - global warming, polluting, and overfishing, to name a few - are acutely felt in the North.

In an editorial in The Independent from 2007, Lynge compared the situation of his people to the rest of the world, he stated, “You go to the supermarket, we go on the sea-ice. When we can no longer hunt on the sea-ice, we will no longer exist as a people.”  So what can be said for polar bears nearing extinction also applies to the traditional lifestyle of the Arctic’s indigenous people.

The EU representative Mr. Borg shed more light on this situation, saying:

Let us not forget that there are more than 4 million people living north of the Polar Circle. It is they who are most concerned and who have a direct stake in the outcomes of our action. Broad consultation of which they form an integral part must be a guiding principle for any action taken.

It seems that the international community is slowly coming to the realization that it cannot only deal with the main recognized actors - the UN and UNCLOS, the Artic-5, and NATO, for instance - in attempting to solve the problems of the Arctic. The EU talks a lot about the need for reliable scientific data on the Arctic - but it also seems to realize the utility of consulting the people who witness firsthand, and can thus give a human face, to the changes occurring in the High North.

Inuit whaler. © Greenland.com

Germany may not have an Arctic coast or Arctic claims, but the country’s Federal Foreign Office will play host to an international conference on the High North from March 11-13. The conference, called “New Chances and New Responsibilities in the Arctic Region,” will be hosted with the cooperation of the Foreign Ministries of Denmark and Norway.

The conference will involve discussions on environmental policy, business, and international law. Above all, the aim of the proceedings will be to understand how Arctic and non-Arctic nations can work together to solve problems in the region.

The press release from the Federal Foreign Office states that German Federal Government possesses

“a strong interest in promoting structures in the Arctic Region that are based on international law, aim for sustainable and peaceful management of the region’s resources and preserve the ecosystem.”

Yet Germany also has an interest in maintaining good relations with Russia and Norway, two of its major gas suppliers. Preventing conflicts in the region would help to secure Germany’s gas supplies. Alas, perhaps behind the entirely valid premise of strengthening international law and preserving the environment lies a desire to ensure that the Arctic’s resources are exploited in a manner that best serves Germany’s interests.

A scientist at the Centre for Northern Studies at Laval University in Quebec has reported that the Arctic could be free of summer sea ice by 2013 (Reuters).

In 2004, scientists from eight Arctic nations working on the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, a study commissioned by the Arctic Council, found that the sea ice could disappear by 2100. And last winter, scientists claimed that the ice could completely melt within the next one or two decades.

But now, some researchers think the ice could melt much sooner. Warwick Vincent, the scientist from Laval University, remarked:

“2013 is starting to look as though it is a lot more reasonable as a prediction. But each year we’ve been wrong — each year we’re finding that it’s a little bit faster than expected.”

Earthsky, a website which features scientific podcasts, has two podcasts on the topic:

• From November 2007: A scientist at the National Ice and Snow Center in Boulder calls the disappearance of Arctic sea ice “a matter of if, not when.” Ice-Free Arctic Podcast

• From March 2008: A geobotanist at the University of Alaska claims that the Arctic is “greening,” with more shrubbery cover, due to the warming of both the land and the sea in the Arctic. Arctic Greening podcast.

Arctic Ice. © Tunde Pescvari.

A New York Times interactive graphic from 2007 displays the changes in the ice pack from 2003-2007. While the extent of the ice shrunk to its lowest recorded level ever in 2007, the ice pack actually grew in 2008. Furthermore, the National Snow Ice and Data Center in Boulder recently admitted that it had underestimated the size of the Artic sea ice by 193,000 square miles this year, an area the size of Spain.

Occurrences such as these give ammunition to global warming skeptics such as Jeff Jacoby, a columnist at the Boston Globe. He asks, “Where’s he global warming?” pointing out the unusually chilly winter that much of North America and Europe has suffered this year. Heavy snow blanketed much of the South, snowstorms shut down airports in London and Paris, and the canals in the Netherlands froze for the first time in years.

Yet it’s important to remember that global warming does not necessarily mean a constant escalation of temperatures. And overall, one cold year does not negate the overall warming trend the earth has experienced in the past several decades, as this video comparing Arctic sea ice coverage from 1975 to 2007 demonstrates.