WHY ARE TENSIONS HIGH IN THE ARCTIC?

THE CONTEXT: The Arctic region, traditionally seen as an isolated, ice-bound zone, is undergoing profound geopolitical shifts driven by climate change. Melting ice is opening up new trade routes and exposing untapped natural resources, intensifying global competition among Arctic and non-Arctic nations. This evolving scenario has raised fears of militarization and conflict in a region that once seemed sheltered from great-power rivalry.

GEOGRAPHIC OVERVIEW

• • Location & Extent
    • The Arctic is the Earth’s northernmost region, encompassing the Arctic Ocean and parts of Canada, Denmark (Greenland), Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden, and the U.S. (Alaska).
  • Importance of Climate Change
    • Rapidly melting ice caps due to global warming are making formerly inaccessible areas open for resource extraction and navigation, altering the security and economic significance of the region.

RESOURCE POTENTIAL

1. Hydrocarbons

• • • Estimated to hold 13% of the world’s undiscovered oil and 30% of its untapped natural gas.
    • Vast majority of these deposits lie beneath the Arctic seabed, making maritime boundaries and Extended Continental Shelf claims very important.

 

2. Minerals & Rare Earths

• • • Greenland boasts some of the world’s richest deposits of rare earth elements, phosphates, and copper.
    • Attracted interest from global players (including China and the U.S.) seeking to diversify critical minerals supply.

 

3. Fisheries

• • • Potentially valuable, newly accessible fishing grounds in the warming Arctic seas.

STRATEGIC IMPORTANCE

1. New Trade Routes

• • • Northeast Passage (along Russia’s Arctic coast): Could significantly reduce shipping distance between East Asia and Europe.
    • Northwest Passage (through Canada’s Arctic Archipelago): U.S. and Canada dispute its legal status—internal waters vs. international strait.

 

2. Critical Maritime Chokepoints

• • • Greenland–Iceland–U.K. (GIUK) gap: A focal point for NATO’s naval defences against potential Russian submarine movement into the Atlantic.

LEGAL & INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK

1. UNCLOS (UN Convention on the Law of the Sea)

• • • Defines Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) stretching 200 nautical miles from coastal baselines.
    • Allows for extension of seabed claims if the continental shelf is proven to extend beyond the EEZ.
    • Canada, Denmark (Greenland), and Russia have submitted overlapping claims on the Arctic seabed.

 

2. Arctic Council

• • • Comprising the eight Arctic nations (Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden, U.S.).
    • Mandate: Environmental protection, scientific research, and safeguarding indigenous communities’ interests.
    • Arctic Council has limited authority over security or military matters, allowing members freedom to deploy military infrastructure.

MAJOR STAKEHOLDERS & GEOPOLITICAL TENSIONS

1. Russia

• • • Possesses the largest fleet of icebreakers (including nuclear-powered ones).
    • Maintains numerous military installations in the Arctic, many inherited from the Soviet era.
    • Proposes expansion of its Arctic claims and exerts control over the Northern Sea Route (often termed the Northeast Passage).

 

2. United States

• • • Has strategic interests centered on Greenland and the Northwest Passage.
    • Tensions with Canada revolve around the legal status of the Passage.
    • The U.S. Pituffik military base in Greenland underscores the region’s security dimension.

 

3. Canada

• • • Stresses sovereignty over the Northwest Passage, considering it an internal waterway.
    • Keen on protecting indigenous rights and environmental integrity but faces pressure from global powers.

 

4. Denmark (Greenland)

• • • Holds sovereignty over Greenland, which has significant rare earth deposits and a U.S. military base.
    • Recent controversies over U.S. interest in acquiring Greenland have heightened Denmark’s focus on security.

 

5. NATO & Other Arctic Nations (Norway, Iceland, Sweden, Finland)

• • • Most Arctic Council members (except Russia) are aligned with NATO.
    • Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has deepened the security anxiety, prompting Sweden and Finland to join NATO.
    • Joint defence concerns over the GIUK gap and the Svalbard archipelago (claimed by Norway, eyed by Russia).

 

6. China

• • • Declares itself a “Near-Arctic State” and envisions a “Polar Silk Road” to secure shorter shipping lanes and resource access.
    • Increasing collaboration with Russia but also potential friction over exclusive resource control.

 

7. Observer States (including India)

• • • India monitors Arctic developments for environmental research, potential resource access, and global strategic implications.
    • India’s observer status in the Arctic Council offers limited influence but underscores New Delhi’s growing interest.

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS

1. Symbolic Claims & Naval Exercises

• • • Russia’s 2007 MIR-1 submarine flag-planting under the North Pole.
    • Russia–China joint naval exercises reflecting a strategic alliance with implications for Arctic security.

 

2. Heightened Military Presence

• • • NATO’s expanded drills near Russia’s Arctic frontiers post-Ukraine conflict.
    • U.S. ramping up visits to Greenland and pushing back on Russian influence in the Arctic Sea.

 

3. Geopolitical Posturing

• • • Renewed interest from the U.S. administration in acquiring Greenland, challenging Denmark’s sovereignty.
    • Russia’s claims on Norway’s Arctic island of Svalbard intensifying distrust among NATO allies.

POTENTIAL FLASHPOINTS

1. Disputed Maritime Boundaries

• • • Overlapping claims to extended continental shelves among Canada, Denmark, and Russia.
    • The unresolved status of the Northwest Passage.

 

2. Resource Race & Environmental Risks

• • • Pressure to exploit oil, gas, and minerals vs. concerns over Arctic ecological fragility.
    • Potential for conflict if economic gains override environmental and indigenous interests.

 

3. Rising Militarization

• • • Base expansions, icebreaker buildups, and large-scale military exercises by Arctic and non-Arctic actors.

IMPLICATIONS FOR INDIA

• • Climate & Environmental Research: Melting Arctic ice affects global weather patterns and monsoons, crucial for India.
  • Strategic Significance: As a rising power and an observer in the Arctic Council, India sees the region as integral to energy security and maritime interests.
  • Economic Opportunities: Access to resources and shorter shipping routes could eventually lower logistics costs for India.
  • Diplomatic Engagement: India aims to maintain a balanced approach, collaborating in scientific research and advocating for rule-based governance under UNCLOS.

THE WAY FORWARD:

TOWARDS AN ARCTIC DEMILITARIZATION & ENVIRONMENTAL TREATY

• • The Antarctic Treaty System (1959) effectively prohibits military activity and ensures scientific cooperation. Although the polar contexts differ, adapting its spirit for the Arctic can curb escalating militarization.
    • Demilitarized Zone Provisions: Similar to those in the Antarctic, with joint patrols for Search and Rescue (SAR) under a coordinated command.
    • Environmental Safeguards: Following principles of the Paris Agreement and IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) findings, making Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) mandatory for all Arctic ventures.

STRENGTHENING UNCLOS COMPLIANCE AND BINDING DISPUTE RESOLUTION

• • Overlapping Extended Continental Shelf claims by Canada, Russia, and Denmark highlight the necessity for a credible, enforceable dispute-resolution mechanism.
  • Universal Ratification & Compliance: Urge all stakeholders (including non-UNCLOS signatories) to accept compulsory jurisdiction of ITLOS.
  • Independent Scientific Commission: Expand the remit of the UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf to speed up decisions on Arctic claims, ensuring transparency and impartiality.

PRIORITIZING INDIGENOUS RIGHTS, SUSTAINABLE LIVELIHOODS, AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESILIENCE

• • Indigenous Arctic communities (e.g., Inuit, Saami) have millennia-old traditions tied to local ecology. Their rights are recognized under the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) and ILO Convention 169, yet remain vulnerable to unchecked resource extraction.
  • Mandatory Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC) for any major Arctic project, supported by local councils and Arctic Council indigenous forums (e.g., the Inuit Circumpolar Council).
  • Community-Led Environmental Monitoring: Incorporating indigenous knowledge systems for ice-thickness tracking, marine pollution detection, and migratory wildlife assessments

ENHANCING CONFLICT PREVENTION & CONFIDENCE-BUILDING MECHANISMS

• • Arctic Military Transparency Pact: Similar to Vienna Document protocols in Europe, requiring prior notification and observation of military drills to build trust.
  • Joint Scientific Expeditions & Data-Sharing: Encourage joint climate-monitoring stations and geological surveys. Collaboration in SAR operations can foster trust and reduce suspicion of hostile intent.

ESTABLISHING A BALANCED RESOURCE GOVERNANCE REGIME

• • The Arctic’s 13% of undiscovered oil and 30% of untapped gas (US Geological Survey, 2009) have fueled competitive claims. Overexploitation risks severe ecological and climate consequences that could undermine global sustainability efforts.
  • Arctic Development Bank (ADB): A specialized financial institution offering green bonds and low-interest loans exclusively to sustainable Arctic ventures—promoted by think tanks like the World Resources Institute.
  • Strategic Resource Quotas: Integrate climate constraints (based on IPCC carbon budgets) to cap annual fossil fuel extraction. Emulate existing fisheries quota systems (e.g., the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas model) for resource sharing.

INCLUSIVE MULTILATERAL PLATFORMS & INDIA’S ROLE:

• • Observer states (e.g., India, China) seek to safeguard trade routes, conduct polar research, and secure future resource partnerships. Integrating them into Arctic governance fosters broader legitimacy and resource support.
  • Expanded Mandate for the Arctic Council: Incorporate security discussions under specific guidelines or sub-forums. This must be multilateral, ensuring voices of non-Arctic states are heard.
  • India’s Leadership in Polar Research: India, with its Himadri research station in the Arctic (Svalbard, Norway), can spearhead green technology transfers (e.g., solar, wind in cold climates), following best practices from its stations in Antarctica.

THE CONCLUSION:

The Arctic’s emerging strategic and economic importance, driven by climate change and resource potential, has amplified geopolitical rivalries. Without robust legal mechanisms and collaborative policies, militarization and overlapping claims risk destabilizing a region of critical global relevance. Ensuring the Arctic remains a zone of cooperation will require careful diplomacy, respect for international law, and responsible resource governance.

UPSC PAST YEAR QUESTION:

Q. How do the melting of the Arctic ice and glaciers of the Antarctic differently affect the weather patterns and human activities on the Earth? Explain. 2021

MAINS PRACTICE QUESTION:

Q. Climate change is rapidly altering the Arctic’s strategic landscape, opening new sea routes and exposing vast natural resources, intensifying geopolitical rivalries. Discuss the factors driving tensions in the Arctic region.

SOURCE:

https://www.thehindu.com/news/international/why-are-tensions-high-in-the-arctic-explained/article69396260.ece#:~:text=Aside%20from%20ongoing%20resource%20extraction,its%20untapped%20natural%20gas%20reserves.

Spread the Word