Securing the Arctic: The Dilemma of Resources, Climate, and Stability

The Arctic region is transforming, both physically and politically, with far-reaching global consequences. While military security has been the main concern recently, the high north is defined by its complexity, and human and climate security needs to be considered in tandem with strategic military endeavours. When navigating these challenges, Europe must assert its role as a leader in Arctic governance, championing sustainable practices and the rights of Indigenous Peoples while tackling the complexities of heightened geopolitical tensions.

One main challenge in the Arctic is climate change, among other things, manifested in the melting of the Arctic permafrost. The melting of the permafrost has been described as a potential “climate bomb” due to the immense amounts of carbon gasses, previously captured in the frozen earth, that will be released into the atmosphere as the ground thaws. Further, as climate change accelerates, it speeds up the melting of the Arctic sea ice, disturbing essential habitats and food webs and threatening the survival of numerous wildlife species that depend on it for hunting, breeding, and protection. This can have cascading effects on global ecosystems and food chains, reaching far beyond the region itself. With the Arctic climate change at the forefront of international discourse, European leadership in policy and research can be crucial in steering collective action towards sustainable solutions and safeguarding the delicate environment in the north.

Further, there is a vested political interest in the region’s future. With changes in the climate, new strategic trade roads can open, as well as access to valuable natural resources. Additionally, military presence in the Arctic space has visibly increased, involving a variety of actors, from the Arctic states especially committed to the region, which includes European countries like Denmark (with Greenland) and Norway, to the U.S. and Russia.

Despite not having direct access to the Arctic, China has also strategically positioned itself as a key player in the region by declaring itself a “near-Arctic state.” This move is a manifestation of China’s ambitions of gaining access to strategic trade routes and tapping into the valuable raw materials in the Arctic. With this, the stage is set for geopolitical challenges to emerge in the high north, increasing pressure for the Arctic Council to adopt a stronger security component as part of its mandate and an amplified need for strong European leadership on Arctic issues.

The thawing of geopolitics: Rights, routes, and resources

Climate change is escalating the thawing of permafrost, and intensifying significant changes to the Arctic sea ice, in terms of extent, type, and annual variations. The ice melting brings about a range of new political developments. Notably Russia’s interest in the potential new and shorter sea routes for commercial activities and China’s interest in new fishing opportunities as the water heats up in the north. More crucial, however, is what is expected to be a new abundance of oil, gas, and rare earth metals and critical raw materials crucial in the green transition, as a result of the warming climate. The cost of extracting raw materials decreases with every drop of melted Arctic ice.

That as much as 22% of the world’s undiscovered oil and gas reserves are located in the Arctic has attracted attention to the region from political leaders, policy-makers and environmentalists alike. While 2.5 million barrels of fossil fuels are extracted daily in Russian and Canadian Arctic areas, up to 157 billion barrels of oil is estimated to still be recoverable in the Arctic region. Recently, Europe’s largest deposit of rare earth elements (REEs) was discovered in the Swedish Arctic, and Canada has discovered deposits on its northern territory large enough to place the country in competition with China.

The Arctic is partially divided along clearly defined national boundaries belonging to each of the Arctic states, and partially considered international waters or disputed areas. The latter two categories are of particular interest when it comes to the current political developments in the region, as states can apply to extend their rights to resource exploitation beyond 200 nautical miles of their baseline, as long as they can prove the area is a “natural extension” of the country’s land mass. This flexibility, combined with the potential for highly valuable resource exploitation and new seaways in the Arctic, has led to several conflicting land claims and major disagreements over waterways.

All big Arctic oil nations have filed partially overlapping land claims to the UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, and China’s ambitions of a new Polar Silk Road along with its repeated (and mostly failed) attempts at investing heavily in Arctic areas like Greenland, indicates rough seas ahead for climate cooperation and the reduction of geopolitical tensions.

From an environmental perspective, the oil reserves (and other raw materials) in the Arctic should stay in the ground. Additionally, while some voices have framed the new access to materials needed for battery production as a crucial opportunity for facilitating a great green energy transition, others — particularly Arctic indigenous groups — strongly argue that the region must remain undisturbed to combat climate change effectively, and to safeguard their indigenous rights. They advocate for dedicating the area to preservation and research, emphasizing its importance for a safe and sustainable climate.

Climate change has significant human security impacts on the many indigenous groups present in the Arctic. On the one hand, traditional livelihood sources like fishing, reindeer herding and hunting are all challenged by the warming climate. Simultaneously, changes to the region’s flora, fauna, and general environment have led to an increased amount of non-indigenous newcomers arriving, seeking newfound commercial and livelihood opportunities.

The world’s second-largest carbon sink is becoming a geopolitical, security, and green transition hotspot. 

Cooperation breakdown and deterrence in the High North

After the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the Arctic Council has suspended all cooperation ties with Russia. As tensions are rising, the general workings of the Council have slowed down significantly. There is an evident need to fill the vacuum of cooperation and sustainable solutions in the Arctic, but achieving this can be a complex undertaking.

Russia has heavily increased its military presence in the region and established 475 new military structures across the Arctic since 2014. While other Arctic nations have followed suit in recent years, Russia now operates over 30% more bases in the Arctic than NATO. Adding to these concerning trends, the breakdown in communications with Russia has also heightened the risk of military miscalculations. On the European side, Denmark, for example, has not only significantly increased its military presence in the Arctic but also pivoted to a positive stance on a potential NATO presence in the region. Similarly, Sweden and Finland have called for significantly stronger EU contributions to Arctic security.

Increased militarization and activity in the Arctic is to be expected, as Russia’s national budget and the national security of several European states is tightly connected to the high north. In the current security environment, deterrence has been framed as the only option left for European states to minimize further escalation in the Arctic — a notion that, when seen in the broader security context, including human and climate security, can be debated.

The pure emphasis on militarization, coupled with a decline in communication, has both exacerbated the existing security dilemma and left critical climate and human security challenges inadequately addressed.

To navigate these complexities, European states should take a proactive leadership role, advocating for a balanced approach that fosters international standards, laws and responsible governance while prioritizing strategic deterrence in the Arctic. This strategy should aim to enhance regional stability and security and to address the pressing socio-ecological challenges in the Arctic.

Moving forward: European Leadership in the Arctic

The Arctic dilemma of balancing sustainability efforts with security and safeguarding the rights of indigenous peoples can seem like a bleak conundrum, yet there are glimmers of positivity on the horizon. Next year, the Arctic Council will be chaired by Denmark, a country which has prided itself on applying a sustainable development framework to its resource extraction activities. Denmark will stand on the shoulders of the Norwegian chairmanship (2023-2025), and create a solid foundation for the upcoming Swedish term (2027-2029). In other words, the Arctic Council will be led for six years by three European states committed to a generally unified agenda when it comes to sustainability and minority rights. That being said, the Scandinavian states are no strangers to the temptations of exploiting the Arctic for its natural resources. Therefore, a united, sustainable development-based European leadership should form the backbone of the next decade of Arctic governance.
As the complexities of geopolitical tensions intertwine with the urgent realities of climate change, Europe should consider the following in order to foster international cooperation in Arctic security and sustainability:

• Safeguarding the rights and security of Arctic Indigenous Peoples through a binding protection agreement;
• Reducing the pressure brought about by resource competition through stricter international regulations and standards on resource exploitation in the Arctic region;
• Make a concerted, united effort to tackle the Arctic security challenges more strategically and carefully reviewing its Arctic Policy from 2021, as the Arctic plays a key role in several European states’ individual domestic interests;
• Strengthen the Arctic Council’s security mandate to bridge the gap between environmental and security concerns and ensure a balanced approach to Arctic stability.