by Helen Cui
It is not a revolutionary concept that the Arctic is melting. Rising temperatures, diminishing sea ice, more frequent weather disasters are on many people’s minds as we proceed into the future. Although it is hard to ignore the far more pressing questions about what the shrinking Arctic means for the global population as a whole, it is nevertheless a new ocean that is being uncovered. The economic and geopolitical opportunity of that area has not gone unnoticed.
However, the sense of urgency within the US to address this new opportunity is low. Perhaps best represented when President Donald J Trump proposed the purchase of Greenland over the summer of 2019. At the time, this was widely perceived to be incredulous; in fact, a follow-up article by CNN in 2020 would title itself, “Wait are we *still* trying to buy Greenland?”1 As random as it seemed, such a move would be at the very least tangentially topical. Though the island was not on sale by Denmark and the assertion that it was, was ridiculous, a decades-old defense treaty allows the US military to have virtually unlimited rights in Greenland. If the US were to expand into Greenland, the amount of authority wielded in the Arctic would grow exponentially. Practically, the incorporation of the island would still not have been feasible. Even so, it had the opportunity to be a response to China having made attempts to gain footholds there. Restricting Chinese influence was also done in 2018 when the US derailed Chinese efforts to finance three airports.
Additionally, a deeper grasp of the Arctic would be favorable for the US. China taking a step into this new frontier is indicative of a larger movement. The more exposed water, the more Arctic countries need to start revisiting former treaties and regulations. Currently, the Arctic countries are Canada, Russia, Denmark (Greenland), Iceland, Finland, Sweden, and Norway. Partitioning the Arctic is deferred to customary maritime law, in which the standard 200 nautical miles off the coast from a country is claimed to be within that country’s boundaries. Even so, that does not cover the entirety of the area, this is where a country can file claims to the UN based upon their continental shelf.
Unsurprisingly, these territorial claims often conflict. So far, Norway and Iceland are the only countries that have been approved by the UN council, which is primarily made up of scientists, in assertions about what counts as each respective countries’ boundaries. Although, Denmark, Russia, and most recently Canada have all submitted scientific documentation in hopes of validating their ownership of contested areas. The most controversial region between all three countries is a seafloor section that stretches from the top of Ellesmere Island along an undersea ridge to the pole and more than 200 km past it. This region contains an incredibly valuable shipping route from Asia into the Americas if the Arctic ice gave way. Therefore, it is likely the most contested because any country that controls those nautical boundaries has lucrative prospects waiting for them.
Frankly, the US has not made much progress or action regarding asserting power as an Arctic nation. President-Elect Joe Biden has stated that he would like a cooperative agenda for the Arctic with the greater goal of safeguarding the environment. This is, in theory, an acceptable policy, however, existing infringements on the mostly stateless nature of the Arctic cannot be ignored. Conflict in some shape or form is inevitable in the region. Arguably Russia poses the largest threat due to recent military actions. For example, the NSR (Northern Sea Route) follows the Bering Strait in the east to the Kara Gate in the west. In Russia, it is seen as a domestic waterway, but to the majority of countries it is an international passage. They have deployed sophisticated machinery and have started to build up a military presence, violating the Svalbard agreement signed barring the Arctic from confrontation.
Furthermore, countries excluded geographically from the region have started to make a grab at the resource-rich North. Earlier in this article, China was mentioned to be investing in Greenland’s infrastructure, this is a common strategy the CCP has used to grow soft power in geopolitically important areas. Economically, they are also exerting efforts in Canada through a $165 million takeover of a Canadian gold mining company that operates in the far reaches of Canada. This deal has been put under a national security review that would extend an audit for another 45 days from the 27th of November. The project is located in Nunavut, notably along the Northwest Passage. If the purchase proceeds, the gold mining operation would become an asset to the plan for a “Polar Silk Road” as dubbed by Beijing and integrated into the large Belt and Road Initiative.
As ridiculous as the purchase of Greenland seemed at the time, if the US wants to maintain any of its dominance in this emerging competitive environment ideally it should be doing something like that. Admittedly, Greenland was never on sale, but the scramble for domain in the Arctic will remain relevant as the world proceeds into an everwarming future. Reliance upon goodwill to stifle conflict has been the approach the US has taken to the issue thus far, nonetheless the examples presented in this article show a noticeable international shift away from existing precedence. Rightfully, focus has stayed upon the continuing climate crisis, though it is imperative that the US does not neglect to take initiative in the Arctic.