The Arctic intersection: security cooperation and competition in the high north

For most of the three decades since the end of the Cold War, the Arctic has been a zone of low tension, a glacial oasis of multilateral cooperation and a geopolitical backwater. That has changed somewhat due to Russia’s 2014 military action in Ukraine, China’s increasingly assertive global reach, declaring itself a “near-Arctic state”, and the United States’ aggressive denunciation of perceived threats by both powers to security in the Arctic. In this context, Paul Taylor, Senior Fellow for Peace, Security and Defence at Friends of Europe and Contributing Editor to Politico, launched his report on Arctic defence cooperation.

In keeping with the theme of international cooperation as key to Arctic security, the panellists represented points of view from across the region, from Norway and NATO, the European Union, and Russia, to the United States. One panellist called in from Alaska on an iPhone because his internet was down, a stark example of the need for better digital connectivity in the region, as recommended in the study.

The consensus among the speakers was that the Arctic continues to be defined as a region of low-tension. As Tone Skogen, Norwegian State Secretary in the Ministry of Defence, stated there is no new ‘’great game’’ in the Arctic, despite perceptions otherwise. China, while interested in the Arctic, is focused on research and economic elements more so than militarisation. And competition over the creation of new shipping routes is vastly overstated. Michael Mann, EU Special Envoy for Arctic Matters agreed ‘’the Arctic has been and remains an area of low tension and peaceful cooperation despite tensions elsewhere in the world.’’- Michael Mann (32:55)

However, certain new geopolitical dynamics still threaten the delicate balance of cooperation and competition. Russia’s military build-up poses the greatest threat, not as a statement of intent to create conflict, but more so in terms of how an unexpected event or a reaction to tensions elsewhere could result in its rapid mobilisation. In her remarks, Katarzyna Zysk, Professor, Deputy Director and Head of Centre for Security Policy at the Norwegian Insitute for Defence Studies in Oslo, explained ‘’The Arctic is not an insulated security space. It is likely to get further intertwined with the supranational and global issues.’’- Katarzyna Zysk (1:06:32)

Katarzyna Zysk and Tone Skogen, in particular, were wary of underestimating Russia’s militarisation of the region. From Tone Skogen’s Norwegian perspective, maintaining a military presence is not only an important deterrent to Russian aggression, but also showcases NATO’s presence in the region. She also emphasised the importance of transparency and openness in dealing with Russia, an opinion echoed by Michael (Mike) Sfraga, Director of the Global Risk and Resilience Program and Polar Institute at the Wilson Center in Washington DC, who warned of the potential of miscommunication to create conflict, asserting ‘’I don’t think it will be… an event where we go to war over the Arctic, I think it’s a miscommunication, not having the right comms in place, not understanding motive and motivation, those are the kind of things that I think could happen in the North.’’ – Mike Sfraga (51:56)

Events such as hybrid and cyberattacks, potentially causing a maritime accident, or an environmental disaster, could aggravate tensions, particularly given the shortage of search and rescue capabilities and certain disputed maritime regions confusing who is responsible for what. Paul Taylor’s report recommends using existing institutions such as the Arctic Council as well as informal diplomatic pathways to maintain communication and resolve these disputes, for example, under the auspices of the Munich Security Conference, an aspect that all panellists agreed with, Tone Skogen remarking, ‘’We need to use the existing fora to preserve a rules-based approach to international cooperation in the Arctic.’’ – Tone Skogen (30:03)

However, despite the threat of Russia and the prospect of an unexpected event turning the Arctic into a region where disputes play out, many considered climate change the gravest threat to Arctic security. Michael Mann stated that climate change is the European Union’s top priority. Soaring temperatures and wildfires in Siberia, melting permafrost causing massive oil spills and disappearing nature and wildlife risk inciting international tensions and threaten the security of local populations. Paul Taylor’s ultimate conclusion to his study being ‘’Ice-savers will be far more important to the survival of humanity and to international security than icebreakers.’’ – Paul Taylor (14:33)

Overall, the report and the launch event highlighted the linkages in the Arctic and the need for continued international cooperation to maintain harmony. Climate change is a global issue, events and tensions elsewhere in the world pose a threat to Arctic peace and stability, and shipping routes and economic relations connect the region with countries far-flung of the High North. As Mike Sfraga put it, ‘’this arc of the Arctic…it’s not just a North American or a Russian story or a Scandinavian story- this is a global story.‘’ (47:05)