Strategic Use of the Arctic Region
Study Guide
Introduction to the Arctic Council
The Arctic Council is an intergovernmental body that promotes research, facilitates cooperation among Arctic countries and fosters sustainable development in the High North. Established by the Ottawa Declaration in 1996, the Arctic Council’s secretariat is now located in Tromsø, Norway. Voting members of the body include Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden and the United States – meaning that all countries north of the Polar circle hold voting powers. As seven of the eight permanent members have large indigenous communities living in their Arctic areas, the council also involves a number of so-called “permanent participants” from groups representing indigenous communities and people, such as the Inuit Circumpolar Council (ICC) and the Saami Council among others. Among the non-voting observers are 13 non-Arctic states, and a number of intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations which are involved in helping with policy and subject-focussed research as well as suggesting ways to move forward. The final say lies with the eight permanent members. There are six working groups within the Arctic Council:
- Arctic Contaminants Action Program
- Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme
- Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna
- Emergency Prevention, Preparedness and Response
- Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment
- Sustainable Development Working Group
Outside of these permanent committees, there are subject-based expert groups and task forces that carry out any additional work. The Arctic Council meets every six months somewhere in the current Chair’s country. The current chairmanship period of 2019-2021 is in Iceland’s hands. Norway, Denmark and Sweden have previously cooperated on their chairmanships, had a shared secretariat during their presidencies 2006-2013 and might do so again in the future.
Mandate & Scope of the Arctic Council
In recent years, the Arctic Council has faced challenges to its commitment to not provide a forum for geopolitical issues. Even so, the eight states have on three occasions successfully negotiated legally binding agreements. Those aim to enhance international cooperation on issues related to maritime search and rescue, marine oil pollution and Arctic scientific cooperation. Despite the Council claiming to be the “pre-eminent high-level forum of the Arctic region” and that “peace and stability in the region lie at the heart of the Council’s cooperation efforts”, geopolitical and strategic uses of the Arctic have traditionally been handled outside this forum, such as at the 2008 Arctic Ocean Conference in Ilulissat, Greenland which only involved the five countries directly bordering the Arctic Ocean. They discussed current issues such as the protection of the marine environment as resource extraction intensifies, maritime safety, and division of emergency responsibilities if new shipping routes are opened. Another issue that was talked about at that conference was “the orderly settlement of any possible overlapping claims”, thus maybe seeking inspiration from the Antarctic Solution.
The Arctic Council does aspire to be the prime forum for all things North, however, and despite the United States’ insistence in 1996 to add "The Arctic Council should not deal with matters related to military security" as a footnote to the founding document, as recently as 2019 their opinion seems to have shifted: United States Secretary of State Mike Pompeo stated that "the region has become an arena for power and for competition. And the eight Arctic states must adapt to this new future". Thus, despite not explicitly stated in its mission statement, the council is often in the middle of security and geopolitical issues since the Arctic has peculiar interests to Member States and Observers. Changes in the Arctic environment and participants of the Arctic Council have led to a reconsideration of the relationship between geopolitical matters and the role of the Arctic Council. The wording of the exclusive 2008 Ilulissat Declaration, which includes as one of its chief goals that “any new comprehensive international legal regime to govern the Arctic Ocean shall be blocked” might also prompt the Arctic Council to take up the mantle by providing a space for geopolitical debate after all. As indigenous organizations were not part of those talks either, they might also favour a stronger mandate for the Arctic Council going forward.
Present Situation and Challenges
The increasing speed at which the Arctic Ocean is becoming ice-free year-round is also speeding up efforts by nations to secure shipping route rights, access to resources and the ability to fortify in states’ national security interests.
Large reserves of oil, gas and minerals are located within the Arctic. This environmental factor generated territorial disputes among member states. The Law of the Sea allows states to extend their exclusive economic zone (EEZ) (which allows exploitation of resources) if the states can prove that their continental shelf extends beyond the 200 nautical miles (370 km) limit. Countries are claiming their sea at the utmost reach from their coastlines. There are disputes over several rocks located between Greenland and Canada, the Bering and Chukchi Seas between Russia and America, and Hans Island and the Lincoln Sea between Canada and Denmark. In addition, a poll indicated that half of Canadian respondents said Canada should try to assert its full sovereignty rights over the Beaufort Sea compared to just 10 percent of Americans. New commercial trans-Arctic shipping routes can be another factor of conflicts. A poll found that Canadians perceive the Northwest Passage as their internal Canadian waterway whereas other countries assert it is an international waterway.
The increase in the number of observer states drew attention to other national security issues. Observers have demonstrated their interests in the Arctic region. China has explicitly shown its desire to extract natural resources in Greenland.
Military infrastructure is another point to consider. Some nations are rapidly increasing their defence commitment by building up their military presence and developing their building infrastructure.
However, some say that the Arctic Council facilitates stability despite possible conflicts among member states. Norwegian Admiral Haakon Bruun-Hanssen has suggested that the Arctic is "probably the most stable area in the world". They say that laws are well established and followed. Member states think that the sharing of costs in regards to the development of Arctic shipping-lanes, research and more by cooperation and good relationships between states is beneficial to all.
Looking at these two different perspectives, some suggest that the Arctic Council should expand its role by including peace and security issues as its agenda. States working hard to aggressively militarize the Arctic are increasingly forcing the Council’s hand to make it a topic of debate. Similarly, the controversies surrounding the Northwest Passage and fights about competing ideas of sovereignty over the waterways are increasing the pressure to find creative solutions in the High North. A 2010 survey showed that large majorities of respondents in Norway, Canada, Finland, Iceland, and Denmark were very supportive on the issues of an Arctic nuclear-weapons free zone. Although only a small majority of Russian respondents supported such measures, more than 80 percent of them agreed that the Arctic Council should cover peace-building issues. Solving security matters in the Arctic Council could save members the much larger amount of time required to reach a decision in the United Nations. However, currently, military security matters are still often avoided. The focus on science and resource protection and management is seen as a priority, which could be diluted or strained by the discussion of geopolitical security issues.
Conclusion/Crucial Points of Debate
As our focus will be exclusively on the strategic use of the Arctic region, it is imperative that you focus on your countries’ interests and balance your approach to the discussion by taking into account your stances regarding: military use including base building and military passage, economic use such as resource extraction, commercial shipping and tourism including cruise ships. It is also important to factor in the change in importance the Arctic Council will receive in case of a legally binding agreement on any of these topics, as such, that should factor into your calculations as well. In this topic block, special observers will be present who can aid with their insight from dealing with similar territorial disputes among other things in the Antarctic Region. Regardless if you are a coastal state, non-member or indigenous permanent observer: the ultimate goal should be to find a common ground regarding these issues and prevent these brooding issues to evolve into a larger conflict in the years to come.
Written by Manuel Kissóczy and August Norup
