Growing security concerns in the ARCTIC

Your 5-minute weekly dose of geopolitics in a straight-to-the-point and illustrated format. Enjoy!

I) The Arctic witnesses increasing tensions due to the economic opportunities it offers

A. An area of international competition where countries are arming and developing aggressive policies

Military tensions between the different Arctic neighbours have been mounting since the 2000s. In 2006, NATO started conducting every 2 years the “Nordic Response” large-scale joint exercise. Finland and Sweden joining the Alliance in 2023 and 2024 respectively has accentuated the latter’s focus on the region. It is also worth noting that in 2021, the USA and Norway signed an agreement authorising US troops to station in Norwegian military bases.

In 2023, the Russian Foreign Policy Concept declared the Arctic a zone of special interest, thereby reactivating Russian military bases in the Arctic.

China, describing itself as a “Near Arctic State”, starts making its presence felt in the Arctic with its fleet of icebreakers after having for long relied on Russia to promote its interests in the region. For instance, in July and August 2024, it sent three icebreakers to the Arctic to signal its regional ambitions.

B. An area blessed with natural resources that are highly coveted

The Arctic bears a strategic importance, mainly due to the presence of major oil and gas reserves:

• Oil in the Arctic = 13% world reserves

• Natural gas in the Arctic = 30% world reserves

Beside fossil fuels, the Arctic’s fish resources also explains the attention paid to the region. Reserves of minerals and metals do not come under consideration when it comes to international competition given that they are already located on territories officially belonging to a State (rare earth elements in Greenland, nickel in Russia, gold in Canada…).

Furthermore, with climate change being 4 times faster in the Arctic than in the rest of the world, new shipping routes are being revealed. According to some estimates, navigation time between Europe and Asia would be reduced by 40% if ships take the Arctic route instead of the one that goes through Malacca. Moreover, they avoid pirate groups active in South Asia.

II) However, the Arctic is not yet a military hotspot and diplomatic multilateralism remains active in the region

A. A currently overestimated importance of the Arctic

There is no reason to think that geopolitical tensions will translate into a direct tangible confrontation in the short-term. As a matter of fact, every country’s military presence in the Arctic region is designed first and foremost to be deterrent and defensive. Moreover, the Arctic’s extreme climate complicates the long-term stationing of troops as well as the conduct of exercises and operations.

From a more economic point of view, the region’s potential remains largely unexploited in the sense that, currently, it is essentially only Russia that uses the Arctic for its trading activities (mostly domestic ones). Additionally, Arctic shipping routes remain highly dangerous for maritime transport. They will become more likely to be passable in the medium to long-term.

B. Some multilateral efforts have been undertaken, though probably not enough

The Montego Bay Convention on the Law of the Sea (1982) is ambiguous on military activities at sea and does not provide information on how to manage them. Despite that, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Russia and the USA signed the Ilulissat Declaration (2008), expressing their commitment to resolve their disputes under the Montego Bay Convention.

In 1996, the Arctic Council was created as a forum for dialogue in order to maintain communication open between the various stakeholders of the region. The Arctic Council also aims at promoting scientific cooperation and the regulation of economic activities. Nonetheless, it lacks enforcement mechanisms, like most international organisations one may say…

In order to better manage international relations in the Arctic region, it may be relevant to draw inspiration from the Madrid Protocol (1991) to the Treaty on the Antarctic (1959). According to the latter, the Antarctic is a natural reserve where only scientific and peaceful activities are authorised. Economic and military exploitation have been forbidden in the Antarctic. However, several countries, in particular those of the Ilulissat Declaration, oppose any attempt to adopt such an international convention for the Arctic for fear that it would prevent them from exploiting natural resources and from expanding their respective sphere of influence.