Once insulated from rivalry, the Arctic now faces mounting insecurity as geopolitics, climate risks, and new actors fracture regional governance
The Arctic region has fast evolved as a new frontier of unfolding geopolitical contestation. Since the onset of the Russia-Ukraine war, the Arctic, a region once characterised by its strategic immunity from escalating security contestation has emerged as an arena of competition between various blocs. More recently, United States President Donald Trump’s assertions of seeking control of Greenland, a territory of Denmark, appears to have further complicated the security landscape in the region. With China defining itself as a ‘near-Arctic state’ and continuing to enhance cooperation with Russia, Beijing is clearly positioning itself to assume a greater role in shaping the governance paradigm of the region. In light of these developments, what does the future of security and stability in the Arctic, a region vital for global climatic balance, look like?
During his speech in Murmansk in 1987, Mikhail Gorbachev, President of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), proclaimed that the Arctic region must remain a ‘zone of peace’. This prompted the discursive narrative of ‘Arctic exceptionalism’, a notion that accords the Arctic immunity from geopolitical tensions and security competition. While this narrative did not translate into a doctrinal tenet, it continued to underscore the imperative of why the Arctic region is unique and preserving its stability remains pivotal.
As evident from the varied interests and objectives that several stakeholders are continuing to pursue in the region, the shape of the regional order in the Arctic appears to be multipolar.
The Arctic is currently confronting manifold challenges. Apart from great power and strategic competitions threatening its security balance, the region has been increasingly vulnerable to climate change-induced security risks resulting in the melting of ice. This thaw appears to have critical implications for the environmental balance across the world. Estimates suggest that the eroding permafrost and melting of sea ice will result in rising sea levels across the world, significantly change weather systems, and affect monsoons patterns. These might seriously impinge on the global climatic balance and adversely affect the lives and livelihoods of people, especially those inhabiting coastal areas. Furthermore, the race for access to natural resources and rare-earth minerals have further prompted contest to seek greater influence, and even control over the region.
The Arctic Council, a regional framework of cooperation comprising the eight Arctic states (US, Russia, Canada, Finland, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, and Iceland), has long guided governance in the region. However, the onset of the Russia-Ukraine war caused the initial disruption within the group. Since the induction of Finland and Sweden into NATO, the Arctic Council comprises Russia and seven NATO countries, significantly limiting the scope of cooperation within the group. Trump’s keenness to seek control of Greenland has complicated matters further; it has led to further fragmentation of the non-Russia bloc within the Arctic Council. China has increasingly made efforts to enhance its strategic presence in the Arctic, by bolstering cooperation with Russia by conducting naval drills in the region. The announcement of China’s ‘Polar Silk Route’, through which Beijing seeks to develop shipping corridors across the Arctic to connect Asia and Europe, has exacerbated the potential of China emerging as a critical actor in the region. These indicate that ‘Arctic exceptionalism’, the discursive expression that once guided governance frameworks in the Arctic, has now eroded, and the state of regional cooperation is more fragmented than ever before.
The onset of new players and blocs in the Arctic prompts the question: what does the new order in the Arctic look like? As evident from the varied interests and objectives that several stakeholders are continuing to pursue in the region, the shape of the regional order in the Arctic appears to be multipolar. First, Russia finds itself isolated from the traditional governance framework of the Arctic Council and remains keen to seek new partnerships in the region to continue to secure its interests in the region. Second, the US appears to be keen on securing access to Greenland to safeguard its national security calculations given its perceived threats from heightened Russian presence in the region. Third, the Nordic countries and Canada are continuing to strengthen efforts to preserve the security balance in the region by way of diplomatically criticising the heightened geopolitical tensions arising from Moscow and Washington’s manoeuvrings in the region. Fourth, China is seeking greater involvement in the Arctic through enhanced collaboration with Moscow to tap into the new trade routes emerging as a result of the melting ice in the region. Finally, though not a cohesive bloc, increasingly, non-Arctic states, which refer to countries that are not geographically embedded in the region, are emerging as new stakeholders in the region. Given Arctic’s role in maintaining global climatic balance, its vast natural resources and the new trade routes which are likely to emerge in the region, several non-Arctic states might direct greater strategic focus towards the region as new opportunities of maritime trade and connectivity appear to evolve.
A major rethink needs to take place to preserve Arctic order, given its vitality for global climatic conditions, weather systems, and ecological balance.
Given the complicated and fragmented state of Arctic governance, the future of the region’s security and stability remains critically vulnerable. A major rethink needs to take place to preserve Arctic order, given its vitality for global climatic conditions, weather systems, and ecological balance. With growing interest from new actors in the Arctic, a careful balance must be achieved to ensure that new opportunities are not maximised at the cost of the ecological balance. For the Arctic countries, however, the eroding notion of ‘Arctic exceptionalism’ must serve as a reminder that the dyad of Arctic-non-Arctic is an outdated framework, as the developments in the Arctic implicate the future of the world. While the future of Arctic security and stability remains volatile, it must alarm global stakeholders and prompt comprehensive strategies to preserve order in the region.
Sayantan Haldar is an Associate Fellow with the Strategic Studies Programme at the Observer Research Foundation.
The views expressed above belong to the author(s). ORF research and analyses now available on Telegram! Click here to access our curated content — blogs, longforms and interviews.
Sayantan Haldar is an Associate Fellow with ORF’s Strategic Studies Programme. At ORF, Sayantan’s work is focused on Maritime Studies. He is interested in questions on ...
Read More +
PREV