International Affairs Academy, Document of the Day - Free Professional Development
The Arctic region is a growing important priority and will dominate international affairs discussions for many years. Please join our discussion, we want to learn from you.
While climate change usually poses challenges to nations, the Arctic presents a unique instance where climate change provides an opportunity for a variety of nations. The thawing of Arctic ice presents easier access to hydrocarbon resources and also provides the opportunity for new shipping routes through the Arctic. It may soon be easier to travel from London to Beijing or Copenhagen to San Francisco by sailing through the once icy Arctic Ocean. This could have a profound impact on global trade and potentially decrease the time it takes to ship goods from China. The opening section of this strategy noted that Russia and China are both looking to capitalize on these new shipping lanes that may be opening up, sometimes stretching their authority under international law in doing so. I think it will be interesting as we further discuss the strategy over the next week to look at how the US is specifically responding to the efforts by Russia and China to capitalize on the opportunity posed by the melting ice.
I also think it is interesting to think about how President Trump's plan to purchase Greenland fits into this strategy. As the document pointed out, US presence in Greenland is already a focal point of our arctic strategy, and ownership of the Island could potentially grant the US more say in the regulation of an arctic shipping route and even greater access to the natural resources it holds. The US recently provided some economic aid to the autonomous region, which could signal a commitment to the area, and the hope to intertwine the US and Greenland further than they already are.
This economic investment could be vital for preserving the US position in Greenland, as China has also been making efforts to get closer to Greenland, including offering to build an airport there in 2018. The US and the EU are both concerned about the growing influence of China in Greenland, and there is fear that if Greenland becomes too dependent on China economically, the government of Greenland could force the US out of the region. Further showing China's efforts to establish a presence in the Arctic.
Investing in or buying Greenland would be a very dramatic move of the United States for many reasons, especially now that these ice formations are melting at such a fast rate. While from what I have read this seems like a fairly far off possibility, it does signal the lasting impacts this shift in terrain will have on relations in the region and internationally, some likening this era to the scramble for Africa replaying in the Arctic.
@Madeline Smith I agree with you that this rush to the arctic is very comparable to the scramble for Africa. It is a good comparison to make.
I also agree that buying Greenland is a long shot, especially since the people their have been pushing for more autonomy and independence for a long time now. It is unlikely that even if Denmark desired to give up the island that the people would support a transition of power from Copenhagen to Washington.
The Arctic is a region that I have never spent much time to study and I was not aware of how important it is to National Security. Climate change is a double-edged sword in the case of the Arctic. It is going to continue to ravage the globe, but in this case, it is building a strategic road for the United States and other regional actors. This thawing not only benefits the Navy and other United States bodies but for oil investment and economic prosperity. This is not an all-around positive outcome, though, seeing as drilling in this region would be detrimental to wildlife and ecosystems. Using this area for strategic advancement is a smart move and one that takes advantage of the natural consequences of the United States and other large countries' massive pollution, but collecting oil and gas borders irresponsible.
China has posed its own Arctic Strategy, pioneering the "Polar Silk Road". China asserts that they are operating in the Arctic on the grounds of "respect, cooperation, win-win result, and sustainability". They expect all states to abide by all international treaties, a bold stance characteristically, and engage multi- and bilaterally with actors in the region to create comprehensive agreements. Through promoting sustainability they are hoping to enforce environmental treaties to be upheld, as well as coordination between environmental protection and economic growth.
In my research for this post, I came across an interesting tidbit that as the Arctic ice melts, it is putting more and more stress on walruses. In addition to the negative impact this has on the broader ecosystem, there are still indigenous Inuit peoples in Alaska that rely on substance walrus hunting, and climate change is threatening this way of life. This doesn't have much to do with US strategy in the Arctic, but the region does have many stakeholders, beyond just great powers, that often get ignored in the discussion of the Arctic.
I find China's activities in the Arctic to be somewhat questionable, and while not as obvious as the threat Russia poses to stability and cooperation in the region, it should be taken seriously. I will be curious to continue to hear your thoughts on China's activities in the Arctic and the "Polar Silk Road" as we dive deeper into the US strategy for the region throughout the week.
@Jay Rosato (Although I know I have mentioned it several times before) The BRI is an interesting intersection with this Polar Silk Road because the development of one would be impactful and likely alter much of the world economy, but both together would no doubt skyrocket China to the top of any military, economic, political ranking much quicker. I will be interested to see what other documents we analyze this week, because as I said this is definitely not an issue I am very familiar with.
The Air Force Arctic Strategy encapsulates why I personally find Arctic affairs so fascinating - the region is an intersection of the challenges that are coming to define the 21st century - dramatic climate change, renewed great power competition, new opportunities for global trade, resource competition, and the preservation of multilateral regimes.
In regard to that last item, like other US government documents we have reviewed, this Strategy emphasizes the importance of working with allies and partners. Since this document is specific to the Air Force, it can offer some more concrete examples as to what that cooperation looks like, particularly joint military exercises with the Nordic countries. Many such exercises have already taken place this year, and with Russia conducting its own exercises, many are growing worried about the possibility of armed conflict above the Arctic Circle.
https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/security/2020/06/b-52-arctic-mission-norwegian-fighter-jets
As the Strategy states, this probability is still quite low, especially compared to other parts of the world. However, the regional changes discussed here mean that it is higher than it historically has been.
It has been interesting this semester to read the posts you put on LinkedIn because, as I said, I have focused on this region very little in the past. Finding a new form of cooperation over an area that has been considered fairly stagnant for the most part will pose quite a challenge for the highly competitive system of governments that we have created. I would be interested to hear your thoughts on the Chinese Arctic Strategy.
I agree with you that it is interesting to see more specifics in this strategy, especially coming from the very broad National Security Strategy. I also think it is good to see NATO members cooperating in the Arctic and beginning to take a stronger stance in the region. Russia has been making many moves in the region, and to counter this influence, the US must work with its northern allies to assure that in the slim possibility of armed conflict, NATO is prepared to respond.
Here is a link about NATO Activity in the Arctic: https://www.nato.int/docu/review/articles/2019/06/28/the-changing-shape-of-arctic-security/index.html
I would also echo that your posts in LinkedIn are a great source of information about developments in the Arctic.
@Madeline Smith You'll probably here my thoughts on that strategy later in the week.
The Arctic plays an important role in modern geopolitical strategy and defense as it is where the two superpowers of the world (the US and Russia) are closest to each other. One interesting thing about this document is that it highlights the advantage of access to oil and natural gas due to climate change without mentioning the risks to defense strategy in the arctic due to climate change. The Arctic ice caps are melting at considerable rates, with each year being the warmest in the Arctic since the last. Greenland in particular is losing its permafrost at a rapid rate. Not only is this alarming from an environmental perspective, but also from a defense and economic perspective. The more permafrost thaws, the more infrastructure such as air bases, roads and pipelines have to be rebuilt and repaired to accomodate the changing terrain. Another risk that comes along with this is that the indigenous people of Greenland are being pushed out of there villages by thawing permafrost. If this rate continues, it is possible that the indigenous people of Greenland will become climate refugees and either go to Denmark or nearby Canada. A third danger, which pertains to infrastructure in Greenland, is the increasing risk of fires in Greenland, without the permafrost there to slow them down. Last year, there were talks of the US buying Greenland, which would allow the US to have access to the oil and natural gas which would be accessible after the permaafrost melts as well as allowing us to increase our defense in the region. While this seems advantageous for the US, one has to consider the risks that come with the changing terrain of Greenland. https://pulitzercenter.org/projects/effects-melting-permafrost-greenland
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/event-tracker/greenland-land-ice-andother-stuff
I like that you brought up the potential infrastructure damage, as this was not something that I had thought of, but remains very relevant to the discussion of the Arctic. While climate change is opening up new opportunities, it is also destroying what has already been built and disrupting existing structures and systems.
I also like how you bring up the idea of arctic refugees. While they are probably not as prevalent as climate refugees whose lives are threatened by rising sea levels or incredibly storm, many people who rely on the Arctic are seeing their way of life disappear. I found the example of the walrus ice hunting to be fascinating demonstration of how Climate Change pushes people out. Though perhaps they will be replaced by new migrants seeking opportunity by the new resources made available due to the thawing frosts.
I have never studied the Arctic in depth but, I have increasingly become intrigued with the region. After reading this article, I did some more research on climate change and the nation of Greenland in particular. According to National Geographic, Greenland's ice deterioration is at an all time high. Southwest Greenland in particular has showed one of the highest increases in recent years which researchers say is an indication of how the rest of the ice-sheets in that region will change. I was pleased to see that a section on the 'Changing Environment' was included in the Air Force's Arctic Strategy. The article includes the recognition of respect for the environments within the region, and as @Madeline Smith and @Jay Rosato discussed, while environmental alternations including the thawing and drilling for oil resources are not the primary sources of climate change, the activity does present some worry. I'm interested to know others peoples views on the increase of climate change within this region and whether the activity of the US Air Force as well as other countries will be a contributing factor?
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2020/09/greenland-could-lose-more-ice-this-century-than-it-has-in-12000-years/
The Arctic is a very interesting area. The fact of the Department of the Air Force has a long history of Arctic appreciation does not go unnoticed with me. The military components and command structures in the Alaska and Arctic region are plentiful and I agree very critical to National Security and Homeland Defense. The arctic presents several components that are critical to consider in regard to security. The close proximity to several other nations that may seek to cause harm to the US and the eroding buffer of Arctic land between the US and other countries are some items of interest National Security commanders may consider when making plans or procedures in the future. The Airforce focusing on Vigilance, Power Projection, Cooperation and Preparation are all areas that are excellent to foster strength in. The Cooperation between the US and other Arctic nations, The Power Projection of showing the strength of Homeland Security the US possesses and the Preparation for the case of conflict in the region. The Command, Control, Communications, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (C3ISR) and North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) are awesome command structures that can offer the advanced warning that many individuals in the US need. These early warning Systems track tens of thousands of objects daily so in the case of a missile launch these warnings could be the difference between life and death. Alaska and the Arctic offer several unique positions. These positions allow the US the quickest flight access to the pacific region and Western Russia so in the case of forces needed in another area quickly that is a huge advantage to the US. The plans for the F-35 beddown and the thermal efficiency infrastructure would make Alaska the home to more advanced fighters then any other part of the world which means it would also be a targeted area so that is something to consider as well. The one fact that stopped me and took me for a loop was that Alaska is the largest state twice the size of Texas but offers only 5,600 miles of Highway compared to the 586,000 square miles of area. In my opinion that should be expanded and transportation routes increased.
I agree with you that transportation infrastructure in the region should be bolstered. Currently there is no road the connects the capital of Alaska, Juneau, to the rest of the state, which reflects the levels of disconnect within the state. In the event of an arctic conflict, this lack of infrastructure could prove to be a security challenge for the US. @Griffen Ballenger would know better than me, but I am under the impression that Russia is actively working to build its infrastructure in the region. Especially if more people begin working and living further north for long periods of time, for both strategic and economic reasons, more roads, towns, police departments, and other amenities will need to be built.
I find this document as it pertains to an interest area of mine, climate change. Seeing the Artic from the perspective of the Air Force is interesting. I was not expecting the Ari Force to have documentation on the Artic to this level. The document here is interesting. The focus on the Artic is important to US interests as it is to other nations. I know Griffen can articulate this in great detail. Something in the document that stood out to me is the use of the arctic as a strategic buffer. The comments here on the buffer eroding interests me. The focus is on the new avenues for attack and not on the Arctic is shrinking leading to sea levels rising. The quote, “increased physical access due to receding land ice and sea ice, yields the potential for intensified regional competition” stands out to me as this document focuses on the Artic, but doesn’t acknowledge the power of climate change directly. A quick search showed that this document doesn’t use the terms “climate change” or “global warming”. Certainly, climate change is an issue facing national security. Focusing more on the document at hand, the missile warning and defense systems interests me. I saw the article detailing Space-X developing a global missile tracking and defense system using space satellites. I am certain that the Space Force and the Air Force will have a hand in this system.
I was also kind of surprised at the role the Air Force plays in the Arctic. I was really surprised that 80% of the DoD resourcing to the Arctic came from the Department of the Air Force. I suppose this makes sense though, as there is still a lot of ice for navies to be very effective and not much infrastructure or reason to host large amounts of ground troops as of today. I was also surprised that the document did not bring up climate change, though perhaps I should not be as the National Security Strategy took a similar stance on the issue.
I am not particularly knowledgable on the Arctic region. I had not thought about how vital it would be to defense. I find it interesting that we have as much military power in the region as we do. However, after reading this I have a new perspective and it makes quite a bit of sense to have our air force in the Arctic. This appears to be an intriguing area to research.
I also am interested in the portion that mentions great power activity in the Arctic. The strategy mentions China not being an Arctic region. As we discussed with the set of documents pertaining to China, China's military is growing closer to the capacity of the US military. With China not having direct access to the Arctic, could our access give us an advantage?
https://um.dk/en/news/newsdisplaypage/?newsid=01fc577b-6bf2-4fd7-8572-5af0534cf599
Today's reading focuses on the initiatives and areas in focus presented in Denmark's Foreign and Security policy, but I've attached a link to the download page for those interested in reading the full document (its not very long).
One of the important areas for Denmark's policy listed in the blog reading is a rules-based international order. In this section, the full text document expressed Danish officials' concern for how the US has been retreating from its global leadership role. As a small state, Denmark relies on the rules-based order that was able to crystalize through international institutions founded in part by the United States, such as the UN and NATO. The US document from yesterday stated the importance of US cooperation with our Nordic allies and partners. The Danish Strategy maintains that American global leadership is in Denmark's best national interest, but if doubt about our ability to lead continues to fester, will necessary cooperation be able to continue?
Regarding the Arctic portion of today's strategy, Denmark's Initiatives and areas of focus are centered around Greenland, unsurprising given that Denmark is only considered an Arctic state because of its ownership of Greenland. The desire to increase Danish support for Greenland's population and infrastructure probably stem from a desire to keep it in the Danish Realm, and thus maintain Denmark's claim to Arctic territory. With all the international interest, Greenland promises to remain a key flashpoint in Arctic affairs for the forseeable future.
I personally found it surprising that Africa took such a prominent role in this strategy. Denmark is a member of the EU and NATO, so it makes sense that they share many of the same concerns about human trafficking, mass migration, and terrorism. All of which are present in the Sahel region. But even so, I expected Denmark to be more concerned about threats from Russia, the Arctic, Chinese influence, and the middle east, as these seem more pertinent to the national security of Denmark. Though Denmark has been connected to Africa for some time now, at one point even having several colonies near modern-day Ghana.
Denmark is especially relevant to many of my areas of interest, including contributions to peacekeeping and economic growth on the continent could have a major impact on the region's political situation. I also liked how this document gave many specifics, including outlining a DKK 118 million program to strengthen stabilization efforts, with efforts on the Sahel, the Gulf of Guinea, and the Horn of Africa. It is somewhat surprising to me that Denmark has outlined a stronger policy on Africa than the United States has, though its regional proximity does make the Sahel a more pressing security threat for Denmark.
I was definitely expecting at least one poignant strategy for Russia or China, but it seemed to be largely ignored. Possibly, because of Denmark's overlapping membership in the EU and NATO, it feels that they can focus less on multilateral large scale looming conflicts and more on internal development and aid projects. Their programs in Africa seem like a progressive step to include in their security plan, especially taking into account their depth.
My attention is drawn to the passage about cyber-attacks targeting Denmark. The immediate attribution to Russia interests me as that is not something I often see. It is good to see that Denmark is not afraid to call out potential threats from foreign actors. I am personally curious to see what massive cyber-attacks they are referring to. I do not immediately recall any large-scale cyber-attacks targeting Denmark. I did however manage to find Denmark’s cyber security strategy and I have linked that below. I do believe that Denmark only stands to gain from their continued cooperation with NATO in cyberspace. US Denmark cooperation in cyber will help improve the cyber readiness of both nations and of other NATO nations. I appreciate seeing documentation stating that Denmark will increase their efforts and engagements in international cooperation towards cyber security. I believe Denmark has the capabilities to assist countries such as Norway who have been targeted by Russian threat actors.
https://www.enisa.europa.eu/topics/national-cyber-security-strategies/ncss-map/national-cyber-security-strategies-interactive-map/strategies/national-strategy-for-cyber-and-information-security
I was also curious what attacks they were referring to and found only a few. From what I can tell the Danish government observed minor attacks happening and tightened their networks to create a very safe state wide platform.
https://fr.reuters.com/article/us-denmark-security-cyber-idUSKBN1DL1PD
https://investindk.com/insights/denmark-ranked-as-the-most-cyber-secure-country-in-the-world
I wonder if tensions in the Arctic increase if Russia and Denmark will increasingly become rivals in the region. If they do, this could make Denmark a larger target for a Russian cyberattack. @Griffen Ballenger knows the Arctic better than I do, so I would defer to him on this matter. But as the two increasingly bash over claims over the Arctic continental shelf, I could see this issue creating more tension, and potentially provoking Russia to take action against Denmark.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/06/countries-battle-control-north-pole-science-ultimate-winner
Reading Denmark's Foreign and Security Strategy Plan was very interesting and one of my favorites so far. This document showed the holistic nature Denmark approaches international relations through, both highlighting internal projects that are ongoing for their state, but also including several plans for outreach to uplift and better connect other parts of the world. Even pieces like working with larger organizations for female bodily autonomy is phrased as a direct promotion of rights of their citizens, but also promoting female bodily autonomy in the region and the world. Gender equity in Denmark has far surpassed that in many other developed countries, including America. Their statistics surrounding equal pay and inclusion in the workplace are impressive and it is clear that this has been a priority for their state for quite some time.
When asylum and migration are discussed in this document, it is clear that Denmark is progressive in its stance. As far as voluntary migration, Denmark was ranked one of the best places to be an immigrant. When it comes to asylum seekers, this September Denmark implemented new policies aiming to "help open doors". This open-mindedness couples well with their interests in Africa, to uplift youth and provide future opportunities.
The inclusion of the line "The Government will work bilaterally and through larger actors, such as the World Bank, to strengthen efforts to promote the right of women to control their own bodies – these efforts include the allocation of funding and secondment of experts" demonstrates the commitment of Denmark to support and maintain gender equality around the world. I also like the emphasis they place on cooperating with other nations and international institutions to fight this issue.
Denmark took a far more progressive and modern approach to national security than the US' 2017 NSS did. In addition to gender equality, this strategy also focused on taking a holistic approach to combat instability in Africa. By focusing on supporting entrepreneurial efforts by young Africans and decreasing youth unemployment, Denmark seeks to target core issues that make terrorism so prevalent in the Sahel and Africa.
@Jay Rosato I was curious about the type of systems they were setting up in Africa and I found several different ones. It seems that the largest is called 'Opportunity Africa' and it aims to promote sustainable development in the region, ensuring that it can remain prosperous in the long term. I also found the Strategy for Denmark's Engagement with the African Development Bank which outlines the more economic side of this assistance.
@Madeline Smith The Opportunity Africa program seems like a great program. It involves over DKK 3 billion investment into the region, with a specific goal on creating sustainable economic growth on the continent. The emphasis the plan places on climate change and increasing citizen opportunity shows a level of understanding of contemporary issues in the region, and has the potential to create real substantial change across the continent. The plan brought up "priority countries," and I would be curious to see what Denmark defines as a priority country.
Thanks for compiling this list of programs, these are very useful resources.
From this document, one can see that Denmark is taking a proactive and as @Madeline Smith said, holistic approach to security policy. Denmark acknowledges that once handling migration and refugees in Europe, the next step is to develope and stabilize the region the refugees are coming from. Denmark also acknowledges that climate change is a major threat to security in Europe as it will not only increase the amount of refugees coming in but will also destroy existing infrastructure. As one has seen in previous documents regarding the EU and NATO, due to a lack of conventional security threats in Europe, the goal has moved to stabilizing periphery states and developing regions of instability. In lieu of conventional threats of military invasions and wars in East Europe, the new security threats are cyberwarfare and terrorism. The Danish strategy mentions both countering radicalization as well as improving cybersecurity to combat cyberwarfare. Another priority in this document is monitoring human rights developments in Europe and elsewhere, especially regarding gender equality and discrimination and persecution against women as well as maintaining freedom of expression and press elsewhere.
I agree that it is interesting to compare Denmark's national security strategy to that of the EU in NATO. In my opinion, Denmark offers a slightly more holistic view of combatting 21st-century threats such as terrorism and mass migration. As you bring up when discussing these issues, it does not treat them as exclusively military and security issues, but also as economic and societal issues, which I think both NATO, the EU, and the US strategies were lacking. Based on many of the readings I have done, the Danish approach of creating economic opportunity and funding sustainable development efforts may be more effective than the military training and intervention efforts undertaken by other nations.
Here is one article about this topic I find particularly interesting to read: https://doi.org/10.1787/630477ee-en
It was very interesting reading the Danish Foreign and Security Policy. The main similarities that I saw between Denmark’s NSS and the United States’ NSS is international cooperation and the idea of peace. In the reading, it is mentioned several times that impact of the United States had or continues to have on Denmark’s policies. Both the US and Denmark share concern for Russia and China’s growing power and potential problems they may cause the two countries. What I found very concerning is that Denmark is looking at the United States as pulling back on their word in the international community. With international Affairs the one thing that can help any deal that you are apart of is your word and bond, by the US backing out of so many international deals the international community had begun to doubt the commitment the US has, Denmark being one of the International Players. I would be intrigued to see if these fears and concerns are expressed by other Allied Countries since the US plays a major part n investing in other countries around the world. With Denmark’s faith wavering in the US they are focusing heavily on EU memberships and trade agreements because of the potentially wavering faith the US is starting to have by putting “America First”. If these concerns are echoed across many allies will that impact more of the US’s partnerships and ties I the international field? Will these cause the US to rethink its international policies?
I agree with you that it is interesting comparing the Danish and American security strategies. The two occupy drastically different roles in the world, with one being a global superpower and the other usually only acting as a regional power. Yet as you point out, many of the concerns are the same. Both strategies mentioning Russia, terrorism, and cyber-security reflect shared interest and concern. Both of these documents also reaffirmed their commitment to NATO. Though I have to agree with you the tone that Minister of Defense, Claus Hjort Frederiksen took towards the US did not indicate Denmark was particularly confident that the US was fully committed to supporting its international commitments. This is not ideal, as these two nations need to cooperate with each other to solve shared global concerns, including Russian and Chinese aggression in the Arctic and terrorism and other security threats that arise from failed states around the world.
I agree. Denmark and the US have a myriad of common goals and projects that their international cooperation is needed. Do you think this could be a step towards NATO losing so much of its influential power since coutnries may start having a lack of faith in one of the major players? I've also seen some discussion taking place that say this could be the first thep on the US being a more isolationist coutnry not wanting to back any international agreements and only looking out for its own interests. Do you have any opinions of these stances @Jay Rosato ? Another point of concern is will these feelings of the US lack of commitment jeopardize any Arctic Initiative currently ongoing? I know @Griffen Ballenger would have a better grasp on Arctic projects and initiatives and the implications of international politics on them then I would, I only know of the Harvard Arctic Initiative with the Belfer Center.
@Roy Rashke Speaking to the question on NATO, it certainly seems like it may be losing some of its influence. With Turkey and France feuding seemingly everywhere and the US beginning to show signs that it may not support its commitments, the situation cannot look good to members outside NATO, and I am fairly certain many members within NATO are growing concerned about the strength of the alliance. I am sure that @Griffen Ballenger could speak further about the struggles that NATO is currently facing then I can.
I would definitely agree that the US is moving towards a more isolationist stance. Our withdrawal from the WHO, Afghanistan, and the Paris Climate Accords, as well as the current administration rhetoric against NATO and their questionable comments about the UN certainly damages our image as the leader of the international liberal order. I'm not sure that the US really wants to, or can, fully withdraw from the international community, but this administration is certainly signalling it would like to. Much of this may depend on what happens over the next few elections.
The most oft-cited aspect of this document is China describing itself as a "near-Arctic state." This declaration was met with incredulity by the foreign ministers of the eight Arctic States. It might be true that the climate changes in the Arctic affect China and that the Chinese are involved in the Arctic scientific community, but many see this distinction as little more than a justification for China to begin pursuing a wider Arctic agenda.
China is willing to acknowledge that it does not have any claims to territorial sovereignty in the region. However, it plays up its scientific intentions and the international law regimes governing the Arctic to lay the foundation for its increase in regional activity. Interestingly, this white paper brings up China's being party to the Spitsbergen Treaty. I'll explain what that is for those who don't know:
The Spitsbergen (or Svalbard) Treaty governs the Svalbard Archipelago off the coast of northern Norway. Signed after WWI, it dictates that all signatories will have commercial access to the islands and be able to conduct economic activities there "on a footing of absolute equality." However it also stipulates that the archipelago is the sovereign territory of Norway, who has governed the islands ever since. Norway has done everything it can to cling to that sovereignty: It claims the Fisheries Protection Zone and continental shelf just outside of Svalbard's territorial waters; street signs are in Norwegian while building and environmental codes have to be up to Norwegian standards, and residents can only vote for the governing Community Council if they enjoy the same voting rights back on the Norwegian mainland. Only Russia has bothered to challenge Norway's sovereignty there, continuing a less-than-profitable coal mining operation to maintain its presence on the islands.
My point is that the Spitsbergen Treaty, as it has been enforced by Norway, gives China less access to "certain Arctic areas" than this white paper would have you believe. The fact that China mentions their Spitsbergen connection right away shows their need to play up every small connection they have to the Arctic to justify their status as a "near-Arctic state."
Those are my thoughts @Madeline Smith.
Very interesting! I did not know anything about the Spitsbergen Treaty, so that contextualizes China's claims quite a bit. I was suspicious of their mention of that treaty because in the brief research I did do when I read the document I saw that the island had been governed by Norway for some time. As you said, Russia is the only one that has challenged this sovereignty thus far, are you concerned that China might try and do the same?
I was somewhat familiar with the Spitsbergen Treaty and the situation in the Svalbard Islands, but your description really helped to clarify it for me.
I also totally agree with you that China's Arctic strategy seems to be devoted to thinking of any possible link they have to the Arctic to justify their power there. If China is a "Near Arctic State" then Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, the UK, Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Ireland should also be classified as near Arctic states.
They cited fishery preservation, UNCLOS, the Kyoto Protocol, the Paris Climate Accords, and its role in the International Maritime Organization as justifications for their involvement in the Arctic. Much like the Spitsbergen, these treaties don't grant China any explicit rights to the Arctic. Though it makes sense for China to defend every remote link they have to the Arctic, as the potential benefits they could reap are immense.
I read over this document on Tuesday and in more depth today, and both times the same things stuck out to me. Firstly, China refers to itself as a near-Arctic state which seems like quite a stretch. If they are referencing the change in climate, then I understand that they might be tangentially impacted but not in a way that would seem to warrant that statement. Climate change is a world issue, therefore pollution in one place will obviously impact the world as a whole, therefore I think China's claims here are a tad ridiculous.
Related to that statement, I found it very curious that China seems to be championing its role in climate change research and prevention. They went as far as saying that they abide strictly by all environmental treaties they are currently a part of and that they expect all other states involved to do the same. This is curious to be seen as historically this has not been the case. It has been reported that seventy percent of companies in China consistently break pollution rules and in 2019 there was a push for the United States Department of State to discipline China for their breach of the International Ozone Treaty. This year China announced a plan to be carbon neutral by 2060, which is bold and still under international scrutiny as far as practicality.
The Polar Silk Road is an initiative that I find fascinating due to the lack of sovereignty in the Arctic region, regardless of their role as an observant member of the Arctic Council. This is a very ambitious plan, in conjunction with the Belt and Road Initiative, as I said on Tuesday. In the document, they seem understanding of their lack of rights to any oil and natural gas found in the region but still show a strong interest in engaging with that market.
(map of the Polar Silk Road and BRI together) https://www.straitstimes.com/sites/default/files/articles/2018/02/20/st_20180220_snarctic20_3774753.jpg
You're absolutely right that it is very hypocritical to cite China's role as a champion of climate change as a justification for Arctic involvement. China does not care at all about what happens in the Arctic, but as @Griffen Ballenger notes, China will find any link to the arctic to legitimize their iffy claim as a "Near-Arctic State."
I agree with you that the Polar Silk Road is an interesting, and perhaps the most consequential component of Chinese Arctic policy. If more countries buy into the Polar Silk road, as they have with the BRI, it could give China immense leverage over developments in the region and allow them to exert influence over the market. Their recent efforts to invest in Sabetta Port in Russia, a key stopover in the proposed Polar Silk Road, demonstrates their commitment to influence the region, despite a lack of sovereignty.
It was interesting to see China focus much of its claims in the Arctic around climate change. China in Section III argued that its status as a signatory on several climate change treaties gave it the right to involve itself in the Arctic, stating "China will actively respond to climate change in the Arctic, protect its unique natural environment and ecological system, promote its own climatic, environmental and ecological resilience, and respect its diverse social culture and the historical traditions of the indigenous peoples." While Its efforts to engage the international community to combat climate change and ecosystem damage in the Arctic are laudable, it seems like more of an excuse to extend Chinese influence into the region. Its calls for international cooperation seem akin to an excuse to prevent any one nation from becoming too powerful in the area than a genuine call for global prosperity in the region.
Needless to say, regardless of the legitimacy of Chinese claims in the region, Arctic powers must take China seriously. China is investing serious money into the Arctic countries, including pouring 20 billion dollars into Iceland, or nearly 6% of Iceland's GDP, and over $1 billion into Greenland, or over 11% of their GDP. China has proven that its investments in countries can grant it leverage over them. China has for years used its influence over Cambodia to block ASEAN from doing much in the SCS. If China gets influence in these countries, they may also get substantially more influence in setting Arctic Policy as a whole.
I also think it is somewhat ironic that China urges members of the international community to abide by UNCLOS when it comes to new passages in the Arctic, but completely disregard legitimate UNCLOS claims in the South China Sea. This just further demonstrates that China will do whatever it takes to secure regional networks, even if it is incredibly hypocritical in practice.
China claims itself to be a near arctic state, but that has caused controversy. Looking at the Arctic Policy they published, there seem to be other motivations besides solely economical. In an article by defense news, they examine this policy. in the article, they criticize China’s scientific research they are doing. China has been calling their research civilian research, but many believe it is not that at all and that they should be scrutinized when they are conducting this research. Another point the defense news article brought up is that China believes that the United States is trying to make an anti-China movement and are using the Arctic as a strategic front. Taking that lense and looking at the Arctic policy they published, I think many could look at it differently. I also feel, as with multiple other countries, that China‘s policy is not sincere and does not seem to represent how China actually acts.
https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2020/05/11/chinas-strategic-interest-in-the-arctic-goes-beyond-economics/
That article is interesting. I did not know that China had a research base on the Svalbard Island, I didn't think Norway would be in favor of something like this. The point you make about the civilian research is good as well, I find their strategy of using research to establish dominance in a region is very odd.
I found China’s policy regarding the Arctic intriguing. When thinking about the Arctic one does not think of China as being a player. I was surprised to learn that China Actually has some stakes in the Arctic by being partners with Russia in the Arctic port of Arkhangelsk. In regards to the Arctic problems extending to outside the inner Arctic states, unless countries meet Carbon standards the Arctic is not the problem that needs to be addressed in my opinion. It is clear China and the United States in particular do not meet Carbon Standards. In the European Commission in 2017, China produced 10.8 million metric tons of Carob followed by the United States at 5.1 million metric tons of Carbon. Unless there are repercussions for failing to meet emission, standards nothing will change. We can see by the United States withdrawing from the Paris Climate Accord no real consequences except reputation tarnishing will happen. I can see the point of getting UNCOS involved with the melting ice caps, the international waters, and contiguous zones being opened. That makes sense as inevitably one country will try to exert control over the entire area so naturally, UNCLOS will have to step in and settle disputes. There is a saying, “Close (near) only counts in horseshoes” meaning China being a “Near-Arctic State” should have no bearing on policies in the Arctic they are not a direct player therefore should not be involved that much in policies in the Arctic. China’s policies regarding the Arctic are along the same lines as other countries thus far so that was a positive point, however, policies especially recently have not been followed by China mainly concerning Hong Kong’s Sovereignty so can the International Community take China on their word they will safeguard “common” interest or just Chinese interest in the Arctic.
Very good points @Roy Rashke. China's activity around the world demonstrates only an effort to expand their own personal influence. The BRI has involved countless predatory loans, and China's efforts to expand their land and maritime territory in East and South Asia show that they care little about preserving international peace. Why should we suddenly trust China to keep global interests in mind in the Arctic? Especially when, as @Michela Pusterla points out, they are potentially developing military capabilities in the region.
As both @Jay Rosato and @Madeline Smith pointed out, China's concern of preserving the Arctic from climate change is interesting albeit hypocritical as China is one of the largest contributors to carbon emissions and pollution. The Chinese government in this document seems to stretch the truth by claiming that China abides by international climate change policy and is prioritzing the issue of climate change. While China has certainly made progress in recent years on reducing carbon emissions, to claim that China has had a positive impact on environmental policy is absurd. I find it interesting that the document attempts to balance economic interests in the Arctic with the acknowledgement of the Arctic's "fragile ecosystem". China wants to encourage tourism and increase trade routes in the Arctic, but in the next sentence talks about doing so in a eco-friendly manner. To use the old adage, China would like to have its cake and eat it too when it comes to environmental policy in the Arctic. However, if one is to cast their doubts aside on China's ulterior motives in the Arctic, then this document is optimistic on China's environmental role in the Arctic and elsewhere. If this document holds true, then this would be a monumentous step forward in combatting environmental issues.