Non-Arctic countries and Arctic politics
Talk at roundtable seminar organized by Japanese Institute of International Affairs and the Norwegian Embassy in Japan. Part of the NUPI project for the Munich Security Conference.
Red Arctic? Affective Geopolitics and the 2007 Russian Flag-planting Incident in the Central Arctic Ocean
This chapter discusses visual representation and Arctic geopolitics, exploring how the image of the flag planted on the Arctic seabed by Russia has persisted as a core visual image of Arctic politics. Using Google Image Search, we compare the pervasiveness of this image with a small selectin of potential image-events of the Arctic, representing different storylines of Arctic politics, and find that they remain comparatively marginal. The chapter considers why the flag-planting image remains so central to Arctic geopolitics by briefly discussion reception and re-use of the flag-planting image in Canada, Russia and the United States.
A Governance and Risk Inventory for a Changing Arctic
In this chapter, Elana Wilson Rowe, Ulf Sverdrup, Karsten Friis, Geir Hønneland, and Mike Sfraga caution against viewing trends of conflict and cooperation in the Arctic in binary terms. While the US and Europe are determined to confront malign activity in the region, all sides continue to “demonstrate a commitment to cooperation and joint solutions to common challenges.” After reviewing the key factors and drivers supporting and challenging stability in the Arctic, the authors remind us that “cooperation in conflict” has long been the norm in the region, allowing cooperative governance to progress despite the enduring NATO-Russia military rivalry. Ongoing dialogue in the region – essential for addressing the regional and global implications of climate change – is poorly served by focussing on “narratives or practices of strategic competition alone.” To avoid “political tipping points” beyond which cooperation will become too difficult, the authors call on policymakers to be more proactive in how they address emerging governance challenges related to security and economic development.
Climate Change and Security in the Arctic
A new report by the Center for Climate and Security (CCS), an Institute of the Council on Strategic Risks (CSR), together with the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs (NUPI), assesses the security risks posed by a warming climate in the Artcic. The analysis looks at two future warming scenarios (curbed and uncurbed) to project security threats alongside potential environmental changes deemed likely in the High North by 2030. The analysis identifies a number of key climate security risks across both warming scenarios, but notes that the risks are more severe and more likely in an “uncurbed” warming scenario. In a “curbed” scenario in which the world takes rapid action to curb climate change, including by transforming energy use, decarbonizing the global economy, and building international institutions to manage climate risks, the Arctic is likely to see fewer opportunities for severe security risks. The report recommends integrating this climate risk analysis into Arctic planning strategies into the coming years, and avoiding the uncurbed warming scenario. Specifically, the analysis highlights five key findings: 1) A warmer and increasingly navigable Arctic will lead to more commercial, civilian, and military activity, rendering the region more prone to accidents and misunderstandings between major players. 2) Increased commercial activity significantly expands the likelihood of states like Russia and China using civilian and commercial actors as vehicles for strategic positioning, dual-use data collection, and for gray zone operations which may escalate to direct confrontation. 3) The institutions that have helped depoliticize and produce stability in the Arctic for several decades may not have sufficient mandates and authorities, or be resilient enough to withstand new demands resulting from climate change. 4) To manage a more complex operating environment in the Arctic, with ever more state and non-state actors, governments will need an integrated toolbox that includes legal, economic, diplomatic, and military instruments. Robust mechanisms for cooperation and communication with civilian and commercial actors will be particularly useful. 5) States are likely to place higher demands on their military forces in the Arctic, particularly as regards to monitoring, assertions of sovereignty, search and rescue, and other Coast Guard duties given higher levels of overall activity in the region. New climatic realities may also reduce the constraints for force projection in the region. At the same time, over-reliance on military approaches in the region could risk escalating conflicts. To build resilience to the above threats, the report recommends that allied Arctic nations begin to advance the elaboration of a “Military Code of Conduct for Arctic Forces,” or other form of renewed dialogue among regional security actors, to address joint security risks.
Launching Norway’s Plan for the UN’s “Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable Development”
NUPI’s Centre for Ocean Governance is ready to step up to challenge.
Elisabeth Librekt Olsen
Elisabeth Librekt Olsen is Senior Advisor in the Research group on climate and energy at NUPI. Librekt Olsen has previously worked at NIKU- Norwe...
The High North, Between Shipping Routes and Militarization Security Challenges to the Arctic - the Norwegian perspective
Short presentation of Russian objectives in the Arctic as seen from the Norwegian perspective made at the secnd panel of a webinar organized jointly by LSE Ideas, NUPI and New Strategy Center as a par of FLANKS project
What does Russia want in the High North?
Brief presentation of Russia's strategic objectives in the Arctic for partners in the FLANKS project
Paul Beaumont
Paul Beaumont holds a Ph.D. in International Relations/International Environmental Studies and Development from the Norwegian University of Life S...
Unexplored resources for EU Arctic policy: Energy, oceans and space
The EUs current Arctic policy from 2016 focuses on climate and environmental protection, sustainable development and international cooperation. The EU has followed up with contributions to research and international cooperation in these areas. However, the EU’s engagement in the Arctic is overlooked internally – with the Arctic perceived of as a marginal arena for policy action – and externally – with a lack of broader recognition for the EU’s Arctic efforts and contributions. We suggest that the EU has perhaps defined its Arctic policy approach - and understood Arctic governance - too narrowly. Arctic policy has been a niche concern in Brussels, and this has resulted in a focused and consistent approach, but involved too few EU actors in Arctic policymaking. Consequently, the EU has unwittingly limited its role in the Arctic and made it even more difficult to formulate a convincing narrative about what the EU has to do with and in the Arctic. In our view, there are three broader policy areas that have untapped potential for giving additional ballast to the EU as an Arctic actor: energy, ocean and space governance.