Both the US and Canada are deriving major chunk of energy from Arctic territories. Along with resources, the importance of this region is growing because of the Northern Sea Route. Analysts are arguing this sea route is going to connect ‘Europe and Asia Pacific’ by reducing the distance. However because of proximity with Arctic, Russia is claiming greater suzerainty over the route, which is being resented by the US
Arctic is becoming a major flashpoint for global politics despite the fact that the price of hydrocarbon is not so high in the international market and the United States is exploring its own domestic reserves. However to an utter surprise, the way both Washington and Moscow (Arctic littoral states) are deploying troops and their strategic weapons, there is a speculation that Arctic’s strategic map is going to be volatile in near future.
One may recall that just before demitting office, then US President Barrack Obama, understanding the geopolitical complexity, put forth the Washington’s strategic policy towards the Arctic. The Department of Defense in a report titled, “On Strategy to Protect United States National Security Interests in the Arctic Region OUSD (Policy)” published in December 2016, charted out the strategy the US is going to adopt towards this part of the world. The strategy report outlined to “Enhance the capability of US forces to defend the homeland and exercise sovereignty”. Further the report emphasised on “freedom of the seas (Northern Sea routes) in the Arctic”. Some of these references are more akin to then US President Jimmy Carter’s famous speech which he outlined in the context of energy-rich West Asia in the 1980. By spelling out these policies, then Obama Administration wanted to pursue an aggressive foreign policy aimed at encircling Russia in this resources-rich region.
Just a few days before the enunciation of the OUSD policy, Russia in its Foreign Policy Concept published in November 2016 highlighted that “Russia will be firm in countering any attempts to introduce elements of political or military confrontation in the Arctic, and, in general, politicise international cooperation in the region”. Russia’s Foreign Policy Concept as outlined in 2016 is a continuation of “Russian Federation’s Policy for the Arctic to 2020” adopted in 2009 where special emphasis was laid on harnessing “strategic raw materials”.
Though both the superpowers — the US and Russia — are deploying troops, the advantage Russia is having in this region is the possession of icebreakers. As has been reported by various newspapers, Russia has around 40 icebreakers and the US possesses only 2. Because of asymmetric possession of icebreakers, Washington Times in a recent report quoting a high official stated that the US is “losing the battle” in the Arctic region. In fact the “OUSD” policy paper has also outlined the complex problem for America in the region in the near future.
What brings the Arctic region into the forefront of global geopolitical mapIJ
As per a study by Energy Information Administration (EIA) there are around “22 per cent of oil and gas” unexplored in this part of the world. The biggest beneficiaries of energy of the Arctic region are littoral states like Canada, the US, Sweden, Norway, and Russia. This is in addition to the gold, zinc, etc. For instance the International Arctic Forum, a body supported by the Russian Geographical Society, in an recent report stated that “more than 80 per cent of oil and major chunk of Russian gas” are produced in this part of the world. This report signifies the Russia’s strategic concern in Arctic.
Both the US and Canada are deriving major chunk of energy from Arctic territories. Along with resources, the importance of this region is growing because of the Northern Sea Route. Analysts are arguing this sea route is going to connect “Europe and Asia Pacific” by reducing the distance. However because of proximity with Arctic, Russia is claiming greater suzerainty over the route which is being resented by the US. In fact, the OUSD report stated that “Russia’s claim over Northern Sea Route” is “inconsistent with international law”. The race for dominance of Arctic is gaining more prominence as is evident from Moscow’s military exercises in this region recently. This is being resented by other littoral Arctic states, particularly by the US. looking at the proactive foreign policy, Washington is pursuing under President Donald Trump, one expects conflict of interests between these two Arctic states. The rivalry between the US and Russia over Arctic can be traced back to the pages of history. It was in the latter part of 19th century when the grabbing for resource-rich colonies was at its height, the US, still not a great power, purchased Alaska from Tsarist Russia through signing of a treaty known as “Convention Ceding Alaska between Russia and the United States” way back in “1867 by paying $7.2 million”. As has been argued by Russian historiographers, Russia’s interest in this landmass can be traced back to 16th century. Some of these facts were succinctly brought out by Roger Howard in an interesting book titled, The Arctic Gold Rush, published in 2009. China though not an Arctic littoral state is trying to reap benefits from the resources lying beneath in this region. For example growing Russian-Chinese bonhomie is also providing an added impetus to the latter in indulging in “resource war”. Already China has made an inroad into the Far Eastern and Siberian energy sectors of Russia. In addition to the energy resources, Beijing is also mooting for having a stake in the Northern Sea route. This policy planners perceive will give teething to its “maritime Silk Road Strategy”. Beijing has also got an observer status in the Arctic Council. China is also sending regular expedition to this region to strengthen its connectivity. Beijing’s involvement in this region is making the situation much murkier. Sensing their mutual proximity other littoral states perceive there is going to be Moscow-Beijing collaboration over Arctic.
One interesting aspect of Arctic geopolitics is that climate change is also proving to be “boon and bane” for the Arctic states. Because of faster melting of ice what one witnesses is that littoral states are expecting greater exploration of mineral resources. So analysts are of the opinion that climate change is contributing to the “scramble for resources”. This in turn is fostering greater militarisation in this part of the world. Even Arctic Council at its various summit meetings highlighted this issue.
Of late India is also showing keenness to enter into this region in a grandeur manner. Though, not a full member of Arctic body, India obtained an observer status in 2013 like China, Japan and South Korea. Unlike, China, however, India does not have much geopolitical interests in the Arctic region. On the other hand in collaboration with Arctic littoral states like Sweden, Norway, the Indian Government has launched scientific explorations in this region. As reported, New Delhi has established a scientific research centre known as “Himadri”. Similarly a new department has been established for studying this region known as National Centre for Antarctic and Ocean Research (NCAOR). India is also pursuing its energy diplomacy in the Siberian and Far Eastern part of Russia with greater intensity located nearer to Arctic. With greater cooperation in the domain of energy not only with Russia but also with Canada, the US will benefit New Delhi in the longer run. The Northern Sea Route in future may also provide an added thrust to the maritime diplomacy of India in future. Though Arctic is assuming strategic significance in recent years for India, long back Indian scholar lokmanya Bal Gangadhar Tilak in an interesting book, Arctic Home in the Vedas, published in 1903, dwells on common “geo-cultural complex” between India and the Arctic.
Over the years Arctic region is facing complex problems ranging from climatic changes, social issues, conflict over resources. Some of these problems propelling the littoral states to pursue both “cooperative” and “competitive” geopolitics. Though “cooperative geopolitics” is the desired goal “competitive geopolitics” is the routine norms of Arctic.
(The writer is Assistant Professor, CRCAS, School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University)
