The Arctic Region as an Object of Geopolitical Contradictions

Chanyshev Rustem Narimovich PhD in History Associate Professor, Department of International Relations, World Politics and Diplomacy, Kazan Federal University Kazan (Volga Region) Federal University, Russia, Republic of Tatarstan, Kazan, Kremlevskaya str., 18 spacecowboy85@bk.ru

Zaripov Rinat Raisovich Student, Department of International Relations, World Politics and Diplomacy, Kazan Federal University Kazan (Volga Region) Federal University, Russia, Tatarstan region, Kazan, Kremlevskaya str., 18 rinat.zaripoff2012@yandex.ru

Introduction

At the present stage of international relations, many countries are beginning to be interested in the situation in the Arctic. This is due to climate changes that affect not only the environment, but also the economic and geopolitical interests of countries around the world.   

Due to the melting of the ice in the Arctic region, new opportunities are opening up. Arctic coastal states can gain access to untapped oil and gas reserves, as well as new transport routes.

Due to the significant relevance of studying the Arctic region, the authors aim to identify possible alliances and coalitions in the Arctic, as well as to characterize their strategic interests.

In this regard, the following tasks are set: to outline the range of problems related to the existing geopolitical contradictions between states.

First, it is the status of states (Arctic, non-Arctic, near-Arctic countries), which is directly correlated with their future opportunities in the region.

Secondly, the issues of dividing resources and Arctic waters into exclusive economic zones occupy an important place, which is also connected with the rivalry between Russia, Denmark and Canada over the Lomonosov Ridge.

Thirdly, the statuses of the transport routes of the NSR and NWF, which provide advantages in international trade.

Fourth, Norway's desire to farm alone in Svalbard.

Thus, in the study of the United States Geological Survey (USGS) "Circum-Arctic Resource Appraisal: Estimates of Undiscovered Oil and Gas North of the Arctic Circle" ^[22] it is reported that more than 400 oil and gas fields have been discovered onshore alone. Accordingly, these deposits account for 240 billion barrels of oil and gas in oil equivalent. Undiscovered reserves are also estimated at approximately 90 billion barrels of oil, 1.669 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and 44 billion barrels of liquid natural gas.

The opening of new transport routes attracts attention no less than mineral deposits. According to Nikolai Korchunov, Ambassador-at-Large of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, new routes in the Arctic have a number of advantages ^[2]. The Northern Sea Route (NSR) is 40% shorter than the transport arteries that pass through the Suez Canal, which saves time and costs. And these facts indicate that a country with sovereignty over new ways can gain a political advantage.

Over the past two decades, Arctic and non-Arctic countries have been actively engaged in the study of the Arctic and the implementation of many projects.

In 2007, Russia organized a scientific research expedition to the North Pole during which, for the first time in history, people reached the bottom at the geographical north pole. And at the bottom, the crew of the Mir-1 bathyscaphe installed a meter-high commemorative sign in the form of the flag of Russia ^[18]. The purpose of this expedition was to prove that the Lomonosov Ridge is a continuation of the Siberian continental Platform, which would allow Russia, in accordance with the 1982 Convention, to expand its exclusive economic zone to 350 miles.

In 2009, the US Arctic Policy Directive was published ^[27]. It says that "in the Arctic, the United States has broad fundamental interests in the field of national security and is ready to act independently or in alliance with other states to protect these interests." Since the United States does not participate in the UN conventions on the law of the sea, which make it possible to make claims in disputed situations on the division of the shelf, accordingly, the United States benefits from the implementation of the principle of freedom of navigation and economic activity. In other words, Washington reserves the right to act unilaterally and carry out its activities outside American jurisdiction ^[1]. 

Non-Arctic countries are also striving for the Arctic and are looking for benefits from changes in the region. But, since they lack the legal grounds for this, they have to cooperate with the Arctic states.

This is confirmed by the fact that many non-Arctic countries, such as France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Poland, Spain, Great Britain, Singapore, India, China, Japan and South Korea, received observer status in the Arctic Council from 1998-2017 ^[10].

At the present stage, the Arctic and non-Arctic countries have disagreements on various issues. But everyone agrees that there are no unsolvable issues and all problems can be solved by peaceful diplomatic means, even though Mike Pompeo said in Finland in 2019 that Russia was increasing its military presence in the Arctic ^[26].

Nevertheless, the representative of the US State Department for the Arctic, Admiral Robert Papp, said: “The United States believes that Russia abides by the Treaty on the Law of the Sea and does everything that is required of it.” ^[8]

The 2013 Kiruna Declaration adopted in Sweden also confirms that countries interested in the Arctic will solve problems peacefully. “The focus of our efforts is the further development of the Arctic region as a zone of peace and stability. We are convinced that there are no problems that we cannot solve together through cooperation, based on existing international law and goodwill. We remain committed to the legal framework of the law of the Sea and the peaceful settlement of disputes in general,” reads the Kiruna Declaration. ^[25]

At the same time, each country strives to protect its interests in the Arctic. And often they either do not receive any support, or they jointly pursue their foreign policy in the Arctic with other actors. It is possible that various alliances and coalitions will be formed in the future.

It should also be noted that in accordance with the increasing interests in the Arctic and the political situation in the region, various works are being published more and more that can explain what is happening in the Arctic.

Accordingly, I would like to highlight several works that will allow us to understand the current situation in the Arctic. 

The main body of Arctic literature used in the article can be grouped by problems as follows. 

 In the works of L.S. Voronkov "Geopolitical international problems of the modern Arctic." (2021), Catherine Stephen, Sebastian Knecht, Golo M. Bartsch "International Politics and Governance in the Arctic: basic principles" (2014) (Kathrin Stephen, Sebastian Knecht, Golo M. Bartsch. "Internationale Politik und Governance in der Arktis: Eine Einf?hrung" and "International Relations and the Arctic: Understanding Politics and Governance" by Robert W. Murray and Anita Dey Nuttall (2014) ("International Relations and the Arctic: Understanding Policy and Governance" by Robert W. Murray and Anita Dey Nuttall). The authors consider a set of problems in the Arctic region based on the application of international maritime law, analyze unresolved contradictions between the Arctic states, which are also aggravated by the fact that non-Arctic states also demonstrate interest in the region.

S.A. Lipina in her work “The Arctic: a development strategy.” (2019) considers the main options for defining the boundaries of the southern Arctic zone of Russia and at the same time describes the main development zones.   

The monograph also touches upon issues related to the formation of mineral resource centers in the Arctic region, examines measures of social support for the population, various preferential economic regimes, and the experience of applying such regimes in different Arctic states. 

Terebov O.V. in his work “The Arctic policy of the United States and the interests of Russia: past, present, future” (2019) examines the problems of the participation of the United States and Russia in the Arctic region. The paper analyzes the historical experience and the current state of U.S. policy in the Arctic. It is noted that Russia has great weight in the Arctic due to physical, geographical, historical and military-political reasons, however, it is emphasized that it is impossible to resolve a number of issues without the United States, especially in the context of climate change.

 The work is based on the methodological principles of historicism, objectivity and impartiality in assessing the Arctic and non-Arctic states in the region. The article uses such general scientific methods of cognition as synthesis and analysis, which allow us to logically draw conclusions on this issue. The work also uses modeling that allows us to assume the geopolitical development of the situation in the Arctic, based on publicly available data. The historical and genetic method, the systematic approach and the statistical method also made it possible to structure data on the political situation in the Arctic region. The historical and genetic method made it possible to understand how the interests of interested states in the region have been formed over a long period of time. Using a systematic approach, the structure of the Arctic was determined, namely, the actors involved in international processes, their interrelation, interests and opportunities to influence the political agenda in the region, which, together, shapes the behavior of all participants. The statistical method made it possible to analyze the available documents and literature on the political situation in the Arctic.

Arctic, near-Arctic and near-Arctic countries.

Currently, there are eight Arctic states. These are countries whose territories and territorial waters intersect with the Arctic Circle - Denmark (thanks to Greenland, which is part of it), Norway, the Russian Federation, the USA, Canada, Sweden, Iceland, Finland. All of them are members of the Arctic Council. Of these eight countries, the “five” states stand out, the coast of which goes to the Arctic Ocean: Denmark (because of Greenland), Norway, Russia, the USA, Canada. They have their own internal waters, territorial sea, continental shelf and exclusive economic zone in the Arctic Ocean.

It is also possible to identify non-Arctic countries and organizations that are interested in the Arctic. For example, the EU, China, Japan, South Korea.  And the objects of their interests are climate, ecology, indigenous peoples, mineral, hydrocarbon and biological resources.

Accordingly, many Arctic countries are not satisfied with the emerging interest of non-Arctic countries in the Arctic. So, Mike Pompeo in 2019 in Finland said that although China is an observer in the Arctic Council, it must respect the sovereignty of the Arctic countries in the region, specifying that the coast of China is 9,000 miles from the waters of the Arctic. The antagonism between the United States and China was clearly expressed in this speech. Also, the US Secretary of State added that there are only Arctic and non-Arctic countries, and that there can be no third category. Thus, showing that the non-Arctic states, which are China, South Korea, Japan and some other European countries, have little chance of sharing any resources in the Arctic ^[26].

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said at the summit in Iceland in May 2021:”We all agree that it is the member States of the Council that bear special responsibility for what is happening in this region.” This statement also confirms that the Arctic countries strive to play a special role in the Arctic region, and that it is these states that form the agenda in the Arctic ^[4].  

In turn, non-Arctic countries are also trying to coordinate their actions in the Arctic and act together in the international arena. Asian countries are particularly active because of their dependence on energy resources and their interest in scientific research in the region.

Starting in 1999, China, South Korea and Japan began holding trilateral meetings on issues in the Arctic. And in 2015, a joint declaration of the three countries was prepared in Seoul on expanding economic and social cooperation for shared prosperity, promoting sustainable development, developing trust and understanding between peoples, and promoting regional and international peace and prosperity. ^[24]

Thus, the Asian non-Arctic countries are trying to strengthen their position in the region by joining forces. 

Thus, one can observe some solidarity of the Arctic countries, which manifests itself in the unwillingness to allow the strengthening of the influence of non-Arctic countries in the region.Whereas, in turn, non-Arctic countries are trying to find a way to influence decision-making on the Arctic.

Division into sectors.

The main document that regulates the procedure for the joint and sovereign use of marine territories is the 1982 Convention. This document was signed by all coastal Arctic countries except the United States. Accordingly, most of the disputes between the countries have been settled. But disagreements still remain. And the main unresolved issues are the unwillingness of the United States to sign the 1982 Convention and the problem of belonging to the Lomonosov Ridge.

The United States did not sign the 1982 Convention, thereby depriving them of the opportunity to influence the Arctic. On the other hand, the Convention would impose restrictions on the exclusive economic zone within 200 or 350 miles (it is allowed to expand the exclusive economic zone within 350 miles if it can be proved that the seabed is an extension of the coast.) ^[7]

Nevertheless, US participation in the Arctic is necessary, especially given the growing interests of many countries in this region. With the help of the United States, it will be possible to solve many issues. Thus, I would like to agree with the statement of the Russian expert O.V.Terebov:” No scenario for the development of events around the Arctic, whether it is rivalry or the adoption of any formalized international regime for the use of the Arctic, is possible without the participation of the United States, which has the greatest military and economic potential among the Arctic states, as well as having long-standing close ties with most of them.” ^[19]

Also, one of the more pressing issues in the Arctic is the dispute between Russia, Canada and Denmark over the ownership of the Lomonosov Ridge. The USA and Norway cannot claim this shelf due to its geographical location. Accordingly, each of the three Arctic coastal countries wants to expand its exclusive economic zone to 350 miles.

“Russia submitted an application to the UN for the expansion of the Arctic borders back in 2001, but it was not approved, considering the scientific evidence inconclusive. A new application, taking into account modern data from marine expeditions, was submitted in 2015. It was considered at several meetings, but no decision was made.” - RIA Novosti reports ^[13,29].

In 2013, Canada filed a lawsuit with the United Nations to expand its zone in the Arctic, but soon withdrew it due to insufficient research base. In 2019, the lawsuit was filed again, the decision on which has not yet been rendered. ^[28]

Denmark also claims the Lomonosov Ridge and filed its lawsuit in 2014 (jointly with the Government of Greenland). Denmark's claims largely coincide geographically with Russian claims to the shelf and reach the exclusive economic zone of Russia ^[14].

But you need to understand that Denmark is a coastal Arctic state solely thanks to Greenland and if Greenland becomes independent, Copenhagen will lose its position in the Arctic region. “It can be assumed that gaining full independence of the island is not an urgent task today, but in the longer term this idea may be re-included in the agenda.” ^[16]

At the moment, there is no final decision on the Lomonosov Ridge.

New routes.

Also, an important international issue in the Arctic region is the legal status of the NSR (Northern Sea Route), where Russia and Canada extend the status of inland waters to the sea straits through which the NSR route passes. As a result, Russia and Canada seek to regulate navigation in the waters of the NSR.

For example, there are disagreements between the United States and Canada over Transport Arteries in the Arctic. The United States and Canada are arguing over the legal status of the Northwest Passage (NWP). The Canadian side believes that the NWF is part of their territorial waters, and Washington states that all countries should have access to the NWF ^[6].

Russia also has the right to regulate navigation within the 200-mile exclusive economic zone in accordance with the 1982 Convention ^[21].

The differences between the United States on the one hand and Russia and Canada on the other are related to the fact that the United States did not sign the 1982 Convention. Because of this, each side has its own view on the status of the NSR and NWFP.

The United States does not agree with the positions of Russia and Canada. So, in 2019, during his visit to Finland, Mike Pompeo called the actions of Russia and Canada illegal in the Arctic. ^[26]   

The US concern about the NSR was also confirmed by US Admiral Paul Zukunft, who, after retiring, admitted that he was stuck in ice during the Arctic operation and the need to call Russia or Canada for help “was my biggest fear during my command.” In this case, the United States would “lose the arguments in favor of free navigation” ^[8].

China holds a similar opinion as the United States. So, in the spring of 2010, Rear Admiral of the Chinese Navy Yin Zhuo made a sensational statement that "The Arctic belongs to the whole world, so no nation has sole power over it." Later, Yuan Zongze, an employee of the Chinese Institute of International Affairs, stressed that "The Northern Sea Route is a global common property and cannot be controlled by individual states."^[17]

This position of the United States and some other countries may encourage Russia and Canada to cooperate in the Arctic. And last but not least, Russia and Canada may take similar positions on the issue of the legal status of the Arctic spaces, to which Russia and Canada seek to extend their jurisdiction. 

The Arctic Bridge project can serve as an example of this. In 2007, the Arctic Bridge project was launched, which connected the Canadian port of Churchill with the Russian port of Murmansk ^[9].

Also, in 2012-2013, Russia and Canada were engaged in other infrastructure projects on the NSR, for example, the Northern Air Bridge or the Cooperation of helicopter companies for transportation in the interests of Arctic shelf development ^[12].

This initiative and the claims of the United States and other countries contribute to the fact that Russia and Canada will take similar positions on the issue of the NSR, and perhaps even strengthen cooperation in this direction.

Svalbard.

Svalbard has a unique legal status, as the international community has transferred the island to Norway as a sovereign territory, but with the condition that other countries will be able to conduct economic activities on this island.^[5]

“The international legal regime of the archipelago turned out to be mixed. It is established not by the State - owner of the territory, but by an international treaty, which this State party to the treaty has undertaken to comply with and execute. It is obliged to exercise its rights in the archipelago in accordance with the provisions of this international legal instrument, and not with its own understanding of its full and absolute sovereignty over it. The sovereignty of Norway, on the terms stipulated in the treaty, applies only to the land territories of the archipelago,” writes L.S. Voronkov ^[3].

By signing this agreement, the states gain access to the resources on Svalbard, as well as the opportunity to monitor compliance with the provisions of the Paris Agreement of 1920 and jointly make certain changes to it. (More than 50 countries have signed the Agreement).

Thus, after the signing of the Svalbard Treaty, no international intergovernmental organization was established to monitor compliance with the conditions under the Paris Agreement of 1920.

But still, sometimes there are disagreements between countries on Svalbard.

Thus, Norway unilaterally introduced a “fish protection zone” and received support from Finland and Canada, which do not fish off the coast of the archipelago. This initiative of Norway was not supported by other countries parties to the treaty. And in 1993, the Norwegian Coast Guard used force against Icelandic and Faroese trawlers that were fishing in the area. And in 1994, the Norwegians for the first time arrested an Icelandic vessel that was fishing without a quota off the coast of Svalbard. ^[15]

Also in 2020, Norway detained the Russian trawler Borey for violating Norwegian fishing rules in the archipelago area. The official representative of the Russian Foreign Ministry, Maria Zakharova, said that a note had been sent to the Norwegian Embassy in connection with the detention of the trawler ^[11]. 

In 2021, the EU unilaterally allocated a quota for 28,431 tons of cod in the waters off Svalbard.

Prime Minister Erna Solberg said: "We believe that this is a violation of Norway's rights and a violation of the EU's obligations to the Law of the Sea Commission."

She also warned that Norway would order its coast guard vessels to arrest and fine boats that violate the rules ^[23].

Thus, observing the above precedents, it can be stated that the Svalbard Treaty of 1920 could not solve all the problems between the countries. And we can note the tendency to increase tensions between Norway and the international community on farming in the Svalbard archipelago.

Conclusion.

Due to its geographical location, wealth of resources, as well as due to climate change, the Arctic region is rapidly manifesting itself as a major arena of geopolitical confrontation and cooperation between states. The conflict and cooperative components of the processes taking place in the region force international experts to look closely at its structure, analyzing the policies of states aimed at extracting enormous benefits from political and economic dominance in the Arctic.

Due to climate change, new opportunities are opening up in the Arctic. But they also entail a lot of conflicts that arise from different points of view on a particular issue.

In the Arctic, there are a number of contradictions between states that are directly correlated with their status in the region (Arctic, non-Arctic, Arctic countries). An important place is occupied by the issues of dividing resources and Arctic waters into exclusive economic zones, issues of rivalry between Russia, Denmark and Canada over the Lomonosov Ridge, the status of the NSR and NWF, as well as Norway's desire to farm alone in Svalbard.  

The difficulty of resolving new disputes lies in the fact that on some issues the positions of the parties converge, and on others they differ.

Thus, Russia and the United States, which are perceived as geopolitical rivals in international discourse, agree that only Arctic countries should have the greatest influence in the Arctic.

The issue related to the ownership of the Lomonosov Ridge is being considered by Russia, Denmark and Canada, but due to a lack of scientific and legal grounds, no country can expand its exclusive economic zone.

Also, disputes over the status of the NSR and the NWF are not dying out. While Russia and Canada believe that these transport arteries pass through their exclusive economic zones, a number of officials, primarily the United States and China, argue that the NSR and NWFP are the property of all mankind. Such a situation may prompt Russia and Canada to cooperate, moreover, the countries already have similar experience.    

Even though the rules of farming in Svalbard are regulated by the Paris Convention of 1920, there are still disagreements between Norway and the international community on economic activities in the archipelago.

In the article, the authors attempt to comprehensively comprehend the interaction of states and their interests in the Arctic. Considerable emphasis is placed on existing and possible contradictions in the future, as well as areas of cooperation in the region. Against the background of a significant number of problems related to the presence of colossal untouched reserves of natural resources in the region and the desire for their fundamental development on the part of the leading players in the region, the states, represented by each other, also seek to find reliable strategic partners for themselves, since some issues on the Arctic can be resolved on the basis of consensus and compromise.

Thus, interest in the Arctic will only grow both in the plane of world politics and from the scientific community.