The ongoing attacks by Russia against Ukraine continue to shock us all. Whatever the outcome of this conflict, and we do not even have a concise view of how long the fighting could last, we are already facing many of its political and strategic consequences, including here in the Nordic states.
Much speculation has already begun about what could be the
longer-term consequences of this war. One such area of debate is what
will happen to Arctic international governance, given that Russia
represents almost half of the Arctic region.
All standing northern co-operative bodies have taken various steps to
react to the war in Ukraine. For example, the parties to the Barents
Euro-Arctic Council, (European Union, Finland, Denmark, Iceland, Norway
and Sweden), have suspended all activities involving Russia. The only
standing inter-governmental forum representing the entire circumpolar
Arctic, the Arctic Council, (the five Nordic states, the United States,
Russia and Canada), took a slightly different approach. On 3 March,
seven members of the Council announced that they were condemning
Moscow’s illegal invasion of Ukraine, and that cooperation with the
Arctic Council would be ‘paused’, even as Russia continues to serve as
chair of the forum until May 2023. Yet, at the same time, the seven
Arctic governments also stressed the importance of continued Arctic
Council cooperation. The ‘A-7’ countries are now considering how the
Council can continue to function under such unprecedented conditions.
Despite Council cooperation with Russia being an impossibility at
present, especially as long as Moscow is holding the chair position, it
is important to note that the A7 states are not calling for Russia to be
expelled from the group. This signals the importance that the A7 has
placed on the Arctic Council as an institution to which Russia can later
return.
One set of analyses argue that the war in Ukraine means that
the Arctic international co-operation will begin to move into two
directions: with closer cooperation between the Western states
in the Arctic, and intensified regional cooperation between Russia and
China. Examples of the stance do include the strengthening of security
ties amongst Western powers, and the likely NATO application from
Finland, and perhaps from Sweden. It is also suggested that China and
Russia, which signed a joint statement underscoring a ‘no limits’
relationship mere weeks before the Ukraine invasion began, may deepen
their coordination in Arctic affairs to push back against the West.
There should be some caution, however, in predicting a ‘Sino-Russian
Arctic alliance’ as a result of the current situation in Ukraine.
Beijing has declared a de facto neutral stance on the conflict, and
although Beijing has rarely missed an opportunity to point at NATO as
being primarily responsible for ‘forcing’ Russia to militarily intervene
in Ukraine, the Chinese government is highly wary of being caught in
the same farrago of sanctions the Putin regime is now facing. In the
Arctic, Chinese energy firms like Sinopec have indicated that they are
scaling back their plans in Siberia, while scientific cooperation
between the two powers has also reportedly stalled since the war began.
Facing public backlash from its ‘zero-Covid’ policies at home, and with a
pivotal National Congress of the Chinese Communist Party to be held
later this year, China cannot risk international punishment for a closer
alignment with Russia, and so has been forced into a ‘not too hot, not
too cold’ approach to Moscow, which is hardly conducive to an Arctic
alliance.
It remains too early to say anything definitive of
how the Arctic governance landscape will be developing. Yet, we argue
that it is not at all a foregone conclusion that we are heading towards
the emergence of ‘two Arctics’. While the Ukraine conflict has dealt a
serious blow to Arctic cooperation, other security issues remain,
including the region-wide emergencies accelerating in number caused by
climate change. The Arctic Council, and its institutions and legal
agreements that have been negotiated under its auspices, may well
continue, even if it is via interim arrangements to keep the various
parts of the Arctic Council moving on without Russia. The circumpolar
Arctic remains too critically important to the entire world to have its
interests simply placed on hold.
Prof Timo Koivurova
Research Professor, Arctic Centre, University of Lapland
Dr Marc Lanteigne
Associate Professor of Political Science, University of Tromsø
Published originally in the Polar Connection (11.5. 2022)