The Arctic in the security-policy spotlight
Original title: Die Arktis im sicherheitspolitischen Fokus
Finland and Iceland are pressing for a security-policy strategy within the Arctic Council—a hotly debated proposal at Arctic Circle.
‘We must discuss whether the Arctic Council should also address security issues,’ Icelandic Prime Minister Katrin Jakobsdottir said in her opening address in mid-October 2019 at the world’s largest Arctic conference in Reykjavik, Iceland.
Finnish Prime Minister Antti Rinne agreed with Jakobsdottir, also arguing that such important issues should be discussed in peacetime and that the EU should be involved. ‘And we can do that best when as many of us as possible are sitting around the table,’ Rinne added.
Finland has sought to initiate a meeting of Arctic leaders on the subject, an initiative to which Jakobsdottir gives Iceland’s full support.
‘Iceland has advocated keeping geopolitics and security policy off the Arctic Council’s agenda because we considered it important to have a forum where we could all hold constructive discussions without larger conflicts taking over. Given growing geopolitical tensions, however, I believe we must discuss whether the Arctic Council should also be a forum for so-called “hard security”, or whether we should have a separate forum for that,’ the Icelandic Prime Minister said.
There is currently no Arctic forum addressing security-policy questions at the North Pole, or one capable of resolving disputes over territory or the exploitation of natural resources. So far, the Arctic Council is the only body bringing together all Arctic states.
Although security policy is addressed in the updated EU strategy for the Arctic, Marie-Anne Coninsx, the EU’s Ambassador for the Arctic, is less certain that a separate Arctic security forum is the right approach.
‘Some of the discussions here in Reykjavik have focused on opening the Arctic Council to security-policy discussions or creating a separate council. I do not, however, think we need to create new organisations. I believe those already in existence will suffice,’ Coninsx said.
Even if a security risk arose, responsibility could not be confined exclusively to Arctic states. Many argue that the EU should be more involved than it is today. Germany’s strategy, for example, encourages the EU and NATO to strengthen their security-policy role in the region.
The Arctic faces major changes. Its climate, environment and entire ecosystems are changing. Over the longer term, this will profoundly alter Arctic realities—for example through new transport routes. The need to prepare is understood, so for some it is natural and logical to ask what this might mean for Arctic geopolitics and security policy.
Norway’s Senior Arctic Official, Bård Ivar Svendsen, also attended the opening session of Arctic Circle in Reykjavik. He was not surprised by what he heard from the Icelandic and Finnish prime ministers.
‘What matters to us at the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs is not to create unnecessary tensions. The current situation is that the Arctic is a peaceful and stable region. We will do everything in our power to contribute to peace and stability, and we see nothing to suggest that this will change significantly. Preserving the stability and peace we have today is in every Arctic state’s interest.’
Svendsen acknowledges that various parties have recently presented ideas for new ways of formalising discussions about Arctic security.
‘There have been several proposals, none of which has yet been formalised. The issue has not been raised by government bodies, but presented as ideas by individuals in debates or forums such as these. So, to date, we have no concrete proposals on the table for how this might be done,’ Svendsen said.
Are there reasons why the Arctic Council should not address security-policy questions? Opinions differ. One thing is certain, however: changing its mandate would be a long-term and, above all, lengthy process requiring everyone’s support—and that would probably be unrealistic.
All Arctic Council members have a particular responsibility to safeguard peace and stability in the North Atlantic and around the Arctic Circle, and to prevent the region from becoming a casualty of geopolitical power struggles.
It is also important to remember that the Arctic Council already has a solid legal framework for the Arctic in international law and the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. Could a separate organisation nevertheless be the solution?
At the opening of Arctic Circle, both the Finnish and Icelandic prime ministers raised the question of how to find ways to discuss important security-policy issues. Nevertheless, Svendsen’s impression is that member states are satisfied with the Arctic Council’s current situation.
‘That is because the Arctic Council has concentrated on the environment and on economic and social development, where consensus could be achieved. We should not forget that the Arctic Council is one of very few international forums where dialogue between Russia and the West has consistently been good. And that is precisely because security policy remains off the agenda,’ Norway’s Senior Arctic Official said.