• No results found

What impact can the economic potential of the Arctic region have on avoiding conflict?

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "What impact can the economic potential of the Arctic region have on avoiding conflict?"

Copied!
43
0
0

Loading.... (view fulltext now)

Full text

(1)

[One-year Political Science MA program in Global Politics and Societal Change] Dept. of Global Political Studies

Course: Political Science Thesis ST632L (15 credits) [2nd/2021]

Supervisor: [Ivan Gusic]

What impact can the economic potential

of the Arctic region have on avoiding

conflict?

(2)

ABSTRACT

The purpose of the thesis is to look into the Arctic region and the relationship that the economic potential of the region has with the growing tension. The research question of the thesis is ‘what

impact can the economic potential of the Arctic region have on avoiding conflict?’. The thesis uses

the theoretical framework of Complex Interdependence as the base for Arctic state behaviour and dependency. The used methods are content analysis for all eight Arctic state regions policy papers and after that case study of a smaller group of states. The thesis highlights, firstly, that Arctic states are deeply interdependent, which make the possibility of conflict unlikely. Secondly, the analysis showed that only two states prioritize the economic potential of the region in their policy papers. Therefore, while conflict is not inevitable, the priority interest areas of each Arctic region state show that cooperation is more beneficial for all involved sides and the economic potential is not the catalyst for military conflict in the region.

(3)

Table of Content

1. Introduction ... 1

1.1. Background ... 1

1.2. Approach and structure ... 2

2. Theory ... 3

2.1. Complex Interdependence theory ... 3

3. Literature review ... 5

3.1. Regions economic potential ... 8

3.2. Conflict in the region ... 9

4. Methodology ... 12

4.1. Existing research methods ... 14

5. Analysis... 15 5.1.1. USA... 15 5.1.2. Canada... 16 5.1.3. Russia ... 17 5.1.4. Iceland ... 19 5.1.5. Denmark (Greenland) ... 20 5.1.6. Finland ... 21 5.1.7. Sweden ... 22 5.1.8. Norway ... 24 5.1.9. Summary ... 25 5.2. Case study ... 26

5.2.1. Sovereignty and security ... 27

5.2.2. Economic potential and resources ... 29

(4)

6. Conclusions ... 33 7. Bibliography ... 35

(5)

1

1. Introduction

1.1. Background

When thinking of the Arctic region many firstly focus on the past – the Cold War. Yet with global warming and climate change drastically heating the globe, the region has become a hot topic once again. This time the focus is on the potential gains that states can get from having more access to the region for more months of the year. While it seems that the focus is not on the tensions between states as it was during the Cold War that is far from the truth. The new potential resources and trade routes have swirled up new problems, such as borders, as well as continued to highlight the reoccurring problems, such as the United States-Russia relationship. As one of the rare regions in the world, which does not have clear borders and governance, the Arctic is an interesting place to look into from the Global Politics perspective. However, the things that make the region somewhat unique are the same reasons why the region is viewed as a possible conflict area. Thus, the problem area for this thesis is the Arctic region and the conflict and cooperation perspective.

The topic's relevance regarding the whole world and society is clear – the region is the common ground for both US and Russia, and if tensions escalate, conflict is possible to which, from a military perspective, the Arctic has the utmost relevance. From the Global Politics perspective, the region is relevant and the interest here is mostly because it is well known that the Arctic is changing and with this change, new challenges arise that can disturb the currently peaceful region (Young, 2011).

The Arctic region has been able to avoid conflict and military action in the region for some time. So, what is the author's reasoning behind choosing economic potential as a research path for avoiding conflict? While it can be argued that conflict will not happen there because of many different reasons, the idea for the research question and whole thesis is based on the economic potential, as it is the area that will change in the near future. The author acknowledges the other reasonings for no conflict, such as the possession of nuclear weapons for some of the states and the fact that the region is actually under control due to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea(further UNCLOS). While these reasons are still extremely valid. the thought behind the economic potentials role here is that the region can be beneficial for all the involved sides without military interference. Also, the states of the region continue to arm and make new Arctic policies regarding security even with the knowledge that armed conflict is not in anyone's direct interests

(6)

2 (Scopelliti and Pérez, 2016). By analyzing the region from an economical perspective, the author hopes to find a compelling reason why economic potential and common gains are the reason why the region will remain at relative peace.

The aim of this master’s thesis is to analyze how the economic potential of the region may be the cause of slowing down or speeding up the conflict in the region. While the region faces many threats from an environmental perspective, such as oil spills, extinction of animals, marine life, and fauna, the focus of the thesis will be on the economic aspect of the region. This includes the potential resources, such as oil and gas, as well as the trade routes that may form as a result of ice melting increasingly quickly in the region.

1.2. Approach and structure

To successfully look at the puzzle of the situation, the author has put forward the research question - What impact can the economic potential of the Arctic region have on avoiding conflict? The first section of the thesis will focus on the theoretical framework that the author has intended to use in the analysis part. The theory that will be outlined here will be the Complex Interdependence theory. The reason why Complex Interdependence theory was chosen is that the world is seeing the rise of multinational governments and organizations that substituted for conventional military capacities, as well as the new value of trade and welfare in foreign policy affairs, as opposed to power and security concerns (Rana, 2015). The second part will focus on previous research and literature. The literature review will help the thesis by showing what has been previously looked at regarding the Arctic region and conflict/cooperation. Previous literature will also help showcase the direction of the thesis in a way that is clear how it will benefit the field of research in Global Politics. This part will also look more into detail about the economic potential and what that means in this specific case, as well as what militarization in the region and how it is military extremely relevant to Western security (Spohr et al, 2013). The methodology is in the third section. This section will explain the methods used in the thesis and methods that have been used in similar previous research. The fourth section will include the content analysis of eight Arctic state policy papers and after that case studies that will focus on a smaller group of states. The section will use the previously mentioned theory to analyze a smaller group of the eight states. The last section will be the conclusion part, which will use everything previously looked at and try to answer the research question, as well as discuss the potential of future research.

(7)

3

2. Theory

As the topic of the thesis is about the impact of economic potential on the Arctic region's conflict, the author has decided to focus on one theoretical perspective to study the case. The reasoning behind using Complex Interdependence theory is the currently globalized world and the theory explaining how and why the states are willing to form mutual alliances with one another in the face of instability and dependency. This part will briefly outline the core assumptions of Complex Interdependence theory. By doing so it provides a clearer understanding of state behavior in the international system, as well as a better grasp of the reasoning for the choices the states make in the region. The choice in favor of this specific theory is based on the author's thought about the idea of a conflict in the region being non-beneficial for any of the involved sides and even not truly possible since the states are so dependent on each other. Thus, with the use of the theory, it may show how a clash is highly unlikely.

2.1. Complex Interdependence theory

Complex Interdependence as an idea in International Relations was put forward first by Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye as an opposite for realism. They formed the idea of an “ideal type of system” in their work “Power and Interdependence”. The three main characteristics of Complex Interdependence are multiple channels, absence of hierarchy among problem issues, and military force having a minor role (Keohane and Nye, 1989).

According to Keohane and Nye multiple channels "connect societies," including informal relations between governmental elites, as well as structured foreign office agreements, which are present in dynamic interdependence (Keohane and Nye,1989:26). The second kind is "informal relations among nongovernmental elites," which are formed by face-to-face or telephonic interaction. The last type is "transnational organization," which includes international banks and companies. Condensing these terms into interstate, transgovernmental, and transnational relations is a more concise way of thinking about them. As a result, these networks can be used by states to communicate and are an important aspect of complex interdependence.

Due to the complex interdependence, foreign policy problems are becoming increasingly important. Even if they are purely domestic policies, all countries' policies are intertwined. Although the regulations tend to solve the concerns of a single country, any legislation could have regional and global ramifications (Keohane and Nye, 1989). As a result of these effects, countries

(8)

4 have sought guidance from liberal institutions, such as the International Monetary Fund and the European Community.

In international relations, the force has always been emphasized based on the premise that states fight for influence and that survival is a state's primary aim. The first explanation is that a state's fear of being invaded has decreased, especially among developed, liberal states, as a result of a current lack of incentive among other countries to invade, as well as mutually beneficial relationships and cooperation resulting from complex interdependence (Keohane and Nye, 1989). The second explanation is that we are increasingly seeing force used as a deterrent, such as nuclear weapons. Goals relating to a state's protection are unlikely to be accomplished by force, and if they are, the consequences may be serious that is why states do not prefer it. States are reluctant to use force for this cause, as well as the domestic resistance that follows (Keohane and Nye, 1989). Military force as a bargaining chip is still important and meaningful in the politics of Complex Interdependence. It has the power to influence the outcome of interdependent relationships. Military force is typically used to exert pressure on a weaker actor in order to achieve political goals. Manipulation of economic or socio-political weaknesses, on the other hand, carries risks and can result in military counter-strategies. It is important to remember that military power trumps economic power in the sense that economic means are almost always useless in the face of significant use of military force. Military conflict, on the other hand, is not a favored choice in today's interdependent environment and is often used as the only negotiating weapon in Complex Interdependence politics (Rana, 2015).

(9)

5

3. Literature review

In this section, the author will look into previously written literature and ideas. The first part will focus on the most popular two views of the situation – the realist view that conflict involving the military is more probable and a more liberal view that military conflict will not happen. The following parts will focus on research about the different dilemmas in the region, as well as the issues about governance that many researchers have put forward. In the end, a summary of the literature will be presented.

Within the field of Global Politics, the Arctic region has become a hot subject. It has also become of a larger interest in the media. In 2007 and 2008, many news agencies and other publications, such as Time, Foreign Affairs, and The Financial Times published stories about the region and its future (Graff, 2007; Borgerson, 2008; Wade, 2008). Yet, as Oran R. Young (2009) highlighted, the concerns about the importance of the Arctic region and the prospect of any conflicts and even armed clashes over control of the region’s reserves of oil and gas and other non-renewable resources are more alarmist than alarming. Similarly, other authors suspect that conflict in the region has far less potential to happen than the media makes it out to be (Brosnan et al, 2011; Palosaari, 2012; Byers, 2010). It is suggested that, as the ice melts, peace prevails. A number of signs point to the Arctic continuing to thrive in a peaceful manner (Palosaari, 2012). No method can fully forecast collaboration or peace. State cooperation or dispute is determined by all conditions and the principles states use to make policy decisions. However, by looking at the conditions and incentives for cooperation in the Arctic, new possibilities for cooperation can be discovered (Brosnan et al, 2011). At the same time, some authors believe that the region has never truly been a region of cooperation, that the Arctic Race is a real problem and some even suggest that the Cold War never ended (Huebert, 2019; Keil, 2015). Nonetheless, as the amount of academic literature about the Arctic keeps growing and claiming that conflict will or will not happen, no one can completely answer why. The reasoning behind the conflict happening is much clearer since climate change has offered the possibilities for unused natural resources. While the author understands that this thesis will not be a completely clear answer to the reason for cooperation or conflict, economic potential, as a tool for preventing conflict, has not been viewed a lot since the economic potential is pushed, as the realist reason for conflict. In addition to the Arctic states, a range of active intergovernmental, regional, indigenous, environmental, research, and non-governmental organizations play a role in the Arctic political puzzle. There tend to be two

(10)

6 significant and somewhat conflicting conceptions of Arctic international relations in the academic discourse. The first emphasizes the position of states and hegemony, as well as the relationship between the eight Arctic states. The second, on the other hand, emphasizes international governance and collaboration, as well as the UNCLOS and environmental regimes (Palosaari, 2012). These two different perspectives are a recurring thing that we tend to notice about the Arctic region. The controversy over the Arctic in international affairs has appeared to be divided into two camps. On one hand, neorealist analyses predict a new Cold War in the High North, as a result of climate change, which enables access to previously ice-covered resources, such as mineral and hydrocarbon resources, new shipping lanes, and new fishing opportunities. On the other hand, there are studies based on neoliberal institutionalist assumptions that emphasize the prevalence of collaboration in the Arctic region and the negative economic consequences of conflict (Keil, 2014). There is no need for collaboration in situations where states can achieve their desired results by acting alone; no contradictions occur or can be resolved by the declaration of state authority. Even if players choose decisive action, they can feel that they need to work together to achieve results that secure or further their goals, as well as to prevent certain outcomes. According to Brosnan et al (2011:174) dilemmas of common interest or dilemmas of common aversion may be used to classify these situations. When actors have a shared interest in achieving any desired outcome, such as one where all actors favor suboptimal outcomes that could result from unilateral intervention, common interest dilemmas emerge. When actors do not share the desired outcome or are faced with many similarly suitable outcomes, they face a paradox of common aversion. They are united in their desire to escape a specific outcome (Brosnan et al, 2011). Problems of common interest can lead to regimes in which players must work together to achieve an optimum result that would not be achieved if each state followed its interests. In the case of the Arctic region where states have an opportunity to participate, their preferred results may be used to recognize dilemmas of mutual interest and aversion in the most urgent Arctic matters, which are then likely to be included in national policies and strategies. As a result, opportunities for collaboration are uncovered, as well as the possible areas of conflict (Brosnan et al, 2011). Although a military presence may be associated with a desire to protect national interests and economic activities in the region, states' acts may cause instability among neighbors because they are unclear and cannot be explicitly attributed to defense or offense (Scopelliti and Pérez, 2016). Thus, the Arctic states seem to be caught in a security dilemma. On one hand, if they do not boost up their military, a

(11)

7 more powerful actor will attempt to exploit their vulnerability and challenge their regional interests. On the other hand, once they expand their military, some will be threatened and expand their capability as a result (Trujillo, 2019). The evidence for this often comes from individual events like Russia placing its flag in the Arctic North Pole and Canada intensifying its presence on the border in the Arctic or the US Navy and Coast Guards focusing on new individual Arctic Strategies (Graff, 2007; Lamothe, 2018). The events can be interpreted in both ways – a state being aggressive or just as a counter-reaction to what has been done previously. Either way, militarization in the region has been a reoccurring event (MacDonald, 2015).

When looking at the Arctic region, there seems to be a lack of reliable governance. The Arctic Council was established in 1996 with the main goal of promoting cooperation, coordination, and interaction among the Arctic States, Arctic Indigenous people, and other Arctic inhabitants on common Arctic issues, in particular on issues of sustainable development and environmental protection in the Arctic (Arctic Council). Yet, the Council seems to lack the power to properly overlook the fields that endanger its existence, such as security, militarization, economic cooperation, and resources. Yet when the Council was founded, these gaps were left on purpose since some states did not want for the security field there to be controlled. With this in mind, there have been ideas of some type of Arctic treaty that would have some grasp on the region. But as Young argues, a legally binding settlement for the Arctic, or at the least the maritime Arctic, is not only politically impossible but also unlikely to be successful in meeting the current demand for governance in the Arctic (Young, 2009:81). But he also mentions a possible solution - to enhance the role of the Arctic Council to oversee these fields (Young, 2009:81). At the same time, some members see a more inclusive Arctic Council as a dilution of its current position, a potential nuisance within their spheres of influence, or an unwanted potential participant in issues that are essentially bilateral, others see a more inclusive Arctic Council as a dilution of its current position, a potential annoyance within their spheres of influence, or an unwanted potential player in issues that are essentially bilateral (Pedersen, 2012).

The Arctic region and research regarding it are quite divided. Based on the explored literature this is the case in all the perspectives. It is either liberal optimism about cooperation or a more realist pessimistic view that conflict will arise. It is either the need for a stronger Arctic Council or a similar treaty to control the region or the region not needing that kind of control because of

(12)

8 international law and sovereign state preference. One tendency that is similar by some authors is the dilemma point of view. Yet, the dilemma at hand is even more evidence towards the division in the literature on the region. The literature presented here has given a grasp on the overall situation whether the conflict will or will not happen. Thus, the intended research question using the chosen theory can focus on the why will or will not and how economic potential can have its impact here.

3.1. Regions economic potential

Economic potential refers to a region's, nation's, or corporation's capacity for economic development, prosperity, and surplus-value production. Economic potential is typically discussed when available opportunities have not yet been completely utilized or used, likely due to a lack of infrastructure (Schaschke, 2014). When looking at the Arctic`s economic potential the not yet utilized opportunities are the natural resources that cannot be accessed yet as well as the trade and shipping routes, new fishing areas, and potential tourism. In the case of the Arctic region, the main obstacle in exploiting the potential is the ice. The current shipping routes alongside the underwater resources are not profitable enough versus the amount it is needed to access them. As the ice-bound Arctic waters open up more and for longer periods each year, talk of Arctic routes like the Northwest Passage or the Russian-based Northern Sea Route, as a feasible alternative, is emerging. In contrast to existing routes, sea traffic from northern Europe to northeast Asia could reduce voyage distances by up to 40% using the Northern Sea Route, according to a purely distance-based analysis (Sharp, 2011:299). Taking into account canal fees, fuel prices, and other factors that influence freight rates, these shortcuts could reduce the cost of a single voyage by as much as 20%, from $17.5 million to $14 million, saving the shipping industry billions of dollars every year (Borgerson, 2008). Increased fishing in the Arctic is also likely a result of climate change. Although there is little information on the exact size of Arctic fishing stocks, fish will likely begin to migrate north, as the southern waters warm. Due to the difficulties of controlling the vast region and a lack of detailed maritime domain awareness, international fishing fleets will likely pursue these fish, and the level of illicit and unreported fishing will almost certainly increase. The melting of Arctic sea ice in the summer has sparked renewed interest in transit shipping, which uses the Arctic Ocean as a link between Pacific and Atlantic ports. Due to decreased fuel consumption and improved trip frequency, the significant reductions in distance relative to the Suez and Panama Canal routes could result in significant cost savings. This was one of the reasons why big shipping

(13)

9 nations like China, Japan, Singapore, and South Korea applied for Arctic Council observer status without having direct territorial claims (Melia et al,2016). China has also shown interest in the region with talks with Russia over cooperation regarding trade. In 2009 and 2012 some high-level government officials from China have tried pushing the narrative about the Arctic belonging to the whole world, yet since then, Beijing has tried to refocus its Arctic strategy on building relationships with Arctic states and regimes, putting a greater emphasis on its scientific priorities, and being wary of claims that its Far North interests are solely resource-driven (Lanteigne, 2014). As the expanse of northern ice begins to shrink and more land and sea regions become available for growth, China's resource diplomacy can be seen in many parts of the Arctic, focusing both on oil, metals, and minerals. The Arctic's contribution to China's need for resources has been gaining traction in policy circles in the region. With China requiring a growing amount of oil and gas imports per year to boost its economic growth, the prospect of fossil fuel production in the Arctic has piqued Beijing's attention (Lanteigne, 2014). There is one important argument about Arctic shipping routes that is often ignored in media reports: just because the Arctic Ocean could be ice-free in the future does not mean that shipping would be feasible or financially viable all year round. With the aid of polar icebreakers, Russia can now use the Northern Sea Route for up to six months a year. The Northwest Passage is open for up to four months per year, but an ice breaker escort is also needed (Sharp, 2011). In the Arctic, problems of increased resource availability and transportation access are intertwined. Many of the logistical difficulties associated with gaining access to these services are dependent on an affordable transportation system. States and large companies will almost certainly pursue creative and cost-effective alternatives to exploiting remote resources, as global reserves of natural resources lower. But the alternatives may clash with the environmental commitments made by the states since the Arctic is one of the main reasons why climate change needs to be stopped - to preserve it.

3.2. Conflict in the region

The Arctic region has been an interesting topic from the International Relations perspective since it is one of the few regions left where there are no real states, and the territory is changing since it is only ice. Thus, even with the UNCLOS, the situation is blurry at best. Also, the United States has not still ratified it with concerns that it will endanger the states sovereignty which may also be seen as a threat to Russia (Rabkin, 2006). During the Cold War, the Arctic Ocean was heavily militarized. Nuclear deterrence was stationed on the Arctic's northern reaches by both the Soviet

(14)

10 Union and the United States. The strategic value of the Arctic Ocean is enhanced by the geographic proximity of the United States and the former Soviet Union, now Russia – ballistic missiles could easily reach the enemy by flying over the Arctic which could lead to an unnecessary conflict (Byers, 2017). The following subsection will introduce what is conflict, the history of conflict in the region, and some feuds that may grow into something involving the military.

Conflict is an existing state of disagreement or hostility between two or more parties (Nicholson and Michael, 1992). This suggests that two or more sides have not reached an agreement and are working on the same question. To put it another way, conflict refers to opposition to a current point of view, stand, or position. Also, when two or more parties participate in a fight over principles and claims to rank, wealth, and resources, the opponents' goals are to neutralize, kill, or destroy the rivals, conflict is said to occur (Jeong, 2017). It is important to remember; however, that conflict does not necessarily imply war. While all wars are conflict situations, not all conflict situations are war situations (Folarin, 2015).

The most well-known conflict in the Arctic region is without a doubt the Cold War. While it is called a war, there was no direct fighting happening. Following World War II, the Cold War was a time of strategic and diplomatic conflict between the United States and the Soviet Union, as well as their respective allies, the Western and Eastern Blocs. Although some Arctic countries have engaged in provocative acts and rhetoric in the recent past, it seems that these were more for domestic political consumption than to send signals to other countries. Indeed, the Arctic countries have a clear track record of cooperation in addressing contentious issues (Johnston, 2012). It has to be highlighted that the purpose of certain military exercises is directed toward building and governmental capacities within these remote areas, rather than creating combat-capable forces. Non-warfare situations, such as evacuations due to natural disasters, organizing missing person searches, and aviation disaster response, were all part of Operation Nanook in 2013 (MacDonald, 2015). Yet, many are still military and security prone. The North Atlantic continues to be vital to the West's overall stability. The inevitable operational reality is that whoever controls this area may either defend or threaten North Atlantic Treaty Organization (further NATO) northern flank if a conflict arises. As a result, Alliance stability and sovereignty are synonymous with North Atlantic defense (Foggo and Fritz, 2018). The last large NATO military exercise in the Arctic region was planned in early March 2020 but was canceled because of the spread of the Covid-19.

(15)

11 The exercise was organized by Norway’s armed forces and was meant to gather 15,000 NATO and allied soldiers. It was designed to put multinational forces to the test in a high-intensity warfare environment set in harsh winter conditions (Defence Post, 2020). From a slightly different point of view, without considering its diminishing economic figures, Russia has always been a force. While the United States and China are structural competitors for global hegemony, Russia is the undeniable military and economic powerhouse in the Arctic. The Russians have militarized the Arctic at a breakneck pace. While Russia's current military build-up in the Arctic is primarily defensive, its offensive capabilities cannot be overlooked. Russia established the “OSK Sever” Unified Strategic Command in 2014 to reinforce the protection of its vast Arctic borders and protect its Arctic interests (Wade, 2014). Since the end of the Cold War, not only have Russian powers changed dramatically but so have a variety of military technologies. Undersea tactics, power projection, electronic warfare, and other forms of warfare have all been expertly applied and used by Russia. Today's Russian submarines are among the world's quietest and most lethal. Russian missiles can now penetrate almost all of Europe, not just the capitals of the North Atlantic nations, thanks to coastal-defense systems, long-range aircraft, and other delivery mechanisms. Furthermore, Russian hackers not only pose a threat to the command-and-control systems but also disseminate false information through global information networks with skill and speed (Foggo and Fritz, 2018). From the latest information, satellite photos reveal a massive Russian military presence in the Arctic. The bases are located on Russian soil and are supposed to be used to defend the country's borders and coastline. However, US officials have expressed concern that the powers could be used to gain de facto control over areas of the Arctic that are further afield and likely to be ice-free soon (Walsh, 2021).

Some disagreements in the region are not on the level of being a conflict, yet they cannot be resolved for a while. The status of Hans Island is a point of contention between Canada and Denmark. The sovereign status of a tiny island in the Kennedy Channel of the Nares Strait between Canada's Ellesmere Island and northern Greenland is disputed by both countries. The uninhabited island is located between the two countries' equidistant borders, which were defined by a treaty signed in 1973. Yet negotiators were unable to reach an agreement at the time. In 2018 Canada and Denmark announced the establishment of a Joint Task Force on Boundary Issues regarding the issue but no results have yet been achieved (Government of Canada, 2018).

(16)

12 Lomonosov Ridge is an unusual, submerged ridge of continental crust and it stretches 1,800 kilometers from the New Siberian Islands to Ellesmere Island in the Canadian Arctic Archipelago, crossing the middle portion of the ocean. The Ridge is claimed by Canada, the Kingdom of Denmark, and the Russian Federation as an extension of their respective continental shelves. The State would have access to the seabed and natural resources outside the existing 200 nautical mile limit if it could demonstrate that it would continue. The last development was that Denmark claimed an area of 895,000 km2 on December 14, 2014, stretching from Greenland to the Russian

Exclusive Economic Zone, passing through the North Pole. The Danish assertion stretches around the North Pole and into Russia's area, unlike the Russian claim, which is usually restricted to the Russian sector of the Arctic (Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark, 2014). A piece of the International Boundary in the Beaufort Sea is also the subject of a dispute between the Canadian territory of Yukon and the American state of Alaska. Since the United States has signed, but not ratified the UNCLOS, no agreement has been reached to date (Baker and Byers, 2012). Also, an important dispute that reached a decision in 2010 was Norway and Russia ratifying the Treaty between the Kingdom of Norway and the Russian Federation concerning Maritime Delimitation and Cooperation in the Barents Sea and the Arctic Ocean. The Treaty's ratification ended a 40-year dispute over a 175,000 km2 region in the Barents Sea that had existed between the two

countries borders. The convention effectively splits the disputed territories in two. Both countries have historically been reluctant to exploit oil and gas exploration in the disputed territory, which is thought to hold large deposits. This is an important indicator that economic gains can be a legitimate reason for cooperation (Treaty, 2010). The above-mentioned disputes are just some of the territorial disputes that the Arctic region faces.

4. Methodology

The methodological approach that was used to conduct the research is the focus of this chapter. The use of theoretical and analytical methods is intended to commit to a better understanding of the current situation in the escalating debate over the Arctic region. The advantages and disadvantages of the chosen approach are discussed.

In order to look at the research question, which is “What impact can the economic potential of the Arctic region have on avoiding conflict?”, the research conducted here at first will be a content analysis of government documents by all eight Arctic Council Member states. This will gather a

(17)

13 better understanding of their interest and potential conflict areas due to this. With the gathered information, the author will compile a shorter state list. Then analyze these specific states, as a case study that will look throughout the Complex Interdependence theory lens. This will help to look more closely at the possibility that some of these states may not be as interdependent and may be the reason behind the conflict. These research methods were chosen as the most suitable for the purpose of this thesis, as the emphasis in the analysis will be laid out on interpreting the behavior and interests of each state from the smaller group according to its priorities, values, and economic reasoning. The analysis part will be formed as a case study with multiple actors and interest areas. The research approach applied in this thesis is qualitative research using deduction.

In order to produce a more objective understanding of the concepts applied in this thesis, they will in this part be operationally defined into somewhat empirically measurable factors. As outlined earlier, the focus of this thesis is the possible influence that the economic potential of the Arctic region has on the possibility of conflict happening and escalating further. The case this thesis uses is the case of the Arctic region and all of the eight states that include. Economic potential as a variable in the thesis serves as a value that includes natural resources (such as oil, gas, metals, ores), trade and shipping routes, tourism, and any other area that can be economically beneficial for a state. It shows the possible gains states can utilize if accessible. Economic potential in this thesis is seen as an independent variable. The supposed dependent variable here is the conflict. With the conflict in this case the author leans more on the concept of militarized conflict. That is because, as looked at in the previous section, different types of conflict are already happening in the region.

These cases are investigated using primary and secondary information, such as legal and official documents, country policies, studies, articles in magazines and journals by other scholars and experts in this area. The main focus for the content analysis part will be the Arctic Policy papers of the states since official documents should show the priority interest areas the best. The documents looked at and analyzed here will be the newest available to the public. Yet, the author acknowledges the obstacles this brings. Some states may not have official Arctic strategies or may not have released them to the public. If this is the case, the author will use the gathered information from news agencies, or previous research. It will be taken into account when formulating the smaller group of states that will be used as case studies later on. Another considerable issue is the

(18)

14 reliability of these state documents. While they may show the publicly acceptable side, there may be interest areas that are not highlighted as priorities or even mentioned at all. The policy papers will be collected throughout official government websites since most of these types of papers are accessible to the public. As mentioned, the methods used in the thesis will be content analysis and after that – descriptive case studies.

4.1. Existing research methods

Different research methods have been used in previous research. Case studies have been conducted that focused on the Arctic region in diverse ways. A popular theme in the research of conflict and cooperation in the Arctic region has been the division by interest areas. Each involved state has its own Arctic policy and thus its own priorities in the region. The differences here are what many researchers position as the reasoning for conflict. In “Assessing Arctic futures: voices, resources

and governance”, the region was broken down to voices, resources, and governance and using case

studies on resources in the Svalbard archipelago, the complexities of making oil and gas a resource for Russia, and the various perceptions of whales as a resource to illustrate the dynamic (Avango et al, 2013:432). A similar approach is seen in the “Cooperation or Conflict in a Changing Arctic?” where the authors examine the Arctic strategies of the United States, Canada, Norway, Russia, and Denmark to see where there are important common issues and circumstances that suggest cooperation among the five states could lead to mutually beneficial outcomes so focusing on the interest areas (Brosnan et al, 2011:174). There is also the example of an author focusing on the most supposedly conflicting resources, examining the five Arctic states' oil and gas interests in order to determine how important they are to their respective countries' policies. The overall standing of the Arctic in countries' policies, the market relevance of Arctic oil and gas, and the identity, the cultural, and historical relevance of the Arctic to each country are the key explanatory factors for the Arctic five's interests (Keil, 2014).

The trend in previously done research is either case studies looking at specific areas, situations, or resources or the authors trying to section the region in some type of way, so it becomes easier to see the common areas and uncommon ones. The author acknowledges existing research methods; therefore, the first analytics part will focus on the policies and interest areas of the Arctic states just as previous research has done.

(19)

15

5. Analysis

5.1.1. USA

According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, the United States of America is the largest military spender in the world. Defense spending in the United States has reached $778 billion in 2020, up by 4.4% from 2019. The United States, as the world's biggest military spender, accounted for 39% of overall military spending in 2020 (SIPRI, 2021). With this in mind, it is no surprise that the US has more than one Arctic strategy. The documents that will be used here will be the “Strategic Approach For Arctic Homeland Security” by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security released on 11 January 2021, Report to Congress about Department of Defense Arctic Strategy released on June 2019, “A Strategic Blueprint for the Arctic” by Department of the Navy released on 5 January 2021, “Arctic Strategic Outlook” by United States Coast Guard released on April 2019, “Arctic Strategy” by the Department of the Air Force released 21 July 2020, and by “Regaining Arctic Dominance” by United States Army released on 19 January 2021. At first glance, one thing becomes truly revealing – all the strategies for the Arctic region are from a defense or security agency of some sort. The US has taken on the role of global peacemaker and supervisor to enforce what the state deems as fit. No other easily accessible document from the US government was available online, which does confirm that the main priority for the Arctic region lies in its strategical importance for security. In all the documents it was mentioned that “The United States is an Arctic nation”. This can be used to justify some of the actions that are planned in the region, as well as to prioritizing when talking about the Arctic. Also in many cases, the focus of the region is on what the policy papers call “Great power competition” (United States Army, 2021; United States government, 2021). The wording is meant for Russia and China. Department of Defence policy documents mentions that “...the United States does not recognize any other claims to the Arctic by any other non-Arctic eight-state” which clearly shows how it feels about China and its growing interest in the region (United States government, 2019). Similar expression used in the papers is “Peace requires enhanced naval presence...” and “Peace comes from strength...” (United States government, 2021:5). These are just some examples that show how the US sees its role in the world and, while the state may want peace over conflict, it is preparing for the worst. The policy documents mention the need to follow international law and how there are states (specifically - Russia) that do not obey it. Yet, unlike Russia, the US is the only Arctic region

(20)

16 state that has not ratified the UNCLOS. None of the papers directly mention US interest in resources and trade routes, yet that is not a surprise since the policy documents are released by defense agencies. Yet, with the clear indicators that the US wants to show how it is an Arctic state, there should be interest in Arctic resources. In the shorter time being Alaska as a resource hub could be enough, but further, on the US resources goals for the sea region, the Arctic may grow. An alarming thing that can be noticed is that almost nowhere in any of the six documents the environment or climate change were mentioned in the context of maintaining it.

The main US priorities in the Arctic region are security, sovereignty and unlike any other state – power. Every other states’ Arctic policy was mainly aimed at individual interest with cooperation. The US individual interests are to overlook the whole region and be the dominating power there. The large role may be the biggest issue since the US tries to manage many conflict-prone regions, thus the Arctic cooperation may be in danger because of other conflicts even though until now it is more peace-focused.

5.1.2. Canada

Unlike the situation with the US, Canada has released the most recent Arctic policy paper in 2019 and it is an overall official government document. The documents do have relating chapters which are written by indigenous organizations. Since the document was not easily available in a form of a document, the author used “Canada`s Arctic and Northern Policy Framework - Compendium of Documents” by P. Whitney Lackenbauer and Peter Kikkert compiled for the North American and Arctic Defense and Security Network which is just a combined version of the Canadas “Arctic and Northern Policy Framework” paper which was originally released by the Trudeau government on 10 September 2019. The framework has chapters focusing on overall Arctic policies, as well as international and security chapters.

The framework highlights eight main goals for the strategy and those are 1) Canadian Arctic and northern Indigenous peoples are resilient and healthy; 2) Strengthened infrastructure that closes gaps with other regions of Canada; 3) Strong, sustainable, diversified, and inclusive local and regional economies; 4) Knowledge and understanding guides decision-making; 5) Canadian Arctic and northern ecosystems are healthy and resilient; 6) The rules-based international order in the Arctic responds effectively to new challenges and opportunities; 7) The Canadian Arctic and North and its people are safe, secure and well-defended; 8) Reconciliation supports self-determination

(21)

17 and nurtures mutually respectful relationships between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples (Kikkert and Lackenbauer, 2019:1). From a first glance, it is clear that the main focus for Canada is domestic problems, specifically the Indigenous population and problems that they face. The indigenous population accounts for a large part of the overall population that lives in the Northern part of Canada which decreases their opportunities for resources that more urban areas in the South of Canada have, such as easy-access medical care and education, a large number of job opportunities, as well as easier transportation possibilities (Kikkert and Lackenbauer, 2019). All of these are top priorities for the Arctic framework. Sovereignty and security are mostly talked about in the international and defense chapters. It can be argued that the framework has some ambiguous reasonings. While it is stated that Canada stands for stability and peace in the region, in the next part it is said that they plan to enhance the military presence in the region and become the leader of the region (Kikkert and Lackenbauer, 2019:44). Canada has also had some interesting decisions regarding NATO and the Arctic. It leads to assuming that Arctic security from Canada’s perspective may be the area of defense, where independent planning needs to be done. A reason behind this may be the strong determination to cooperate with indigenous people to which some NATO allies may not be as respectable. Any economic interests that are mentioned are closely interlinked with the domestic issues concerning the indigenous population and environmental issues (Kikkert and Lackenbauer, 2019). From the policy paper we can suspect that while there is interest in the economic potential of the Arctic waters, these interests are less important than environment and nature conservation.

The top priorities that are the focus for Canada are the overall well-being of the indigenous population, sovereignty, and security. While there are no clear “red flags” on Canada`s intentions regarding benefiting extensively from the resources and trade routes when available, the policy paper seems slightly hostile when talking about security and does not fully talk about the reasoning behind any threats.

5.1.3. Russia

In the case of Russia, Arctic strategy is an important part of their cultural affiliation. That is why the Arctic region is of utmost importance and the most recent Arctic Policy paper has been released in 2020 and includes the plans for the arctic till 2035. The document that the author will analyze is “Foundations of the Russian Federation State Policy in the Arctic for the Period up to 2035”

(22)

18 which is the translated version from the original document that was released on 5 March 2020. The translation was done by Anna Davis and Ryan Vest for Russia Maritime Studies Institute, United States Naval War College. As the only state in the Arctic region that is not part of NATO, Russia is the “black horse” of the region since a lot of threats for other states stem from Russia and the unknown aims of the state. The priorities for Russia in the Arctic region are protecting the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Russian Federation; preserving the Arctic as a territory of peace and stability; increasing the quality of life of the population of the Arctic zone of the Russian Federation; developing the Arctic zone of the Russian Federation as a strategic resource base to accelerate the economic growth of the Russian Federation; developing the Northern Sea Route as the Russian Federation’s competitive national transportation passage in the world market; protecting the environment in the Arctic (Davis et al, 2020:3)

Immediately noticeable is the reoccurrence of the words “national interests”. The term is mentioned in almost every sub-part of the paper (Davis et al, 2020). Also, the region is, as expected, important to Russia not only as a potential place to become wealthier but as a part of their cultural identity. In the fifteen years, Russia is planning on modernizing the fleet, growing the number of available ice breakers, as well as forming new stations for border security in the Arctic (Davis et al, 2020). While throughout the whole document security and military were defined as high priority goals, successful cooperation with other Arctic Council states and global cooperation overall is also a part of the paper. That is most noticeable in areas like research, rescue mission planning, and addressing environmental issues. From this, the author can observe that while Russia is treating security in the region as the top priority, cooperation to some extent is desirable by the state (Davis et al, 2020).

The backbone of the strategy is economic development. It is the base onto which Russia is planning to build their military power, the base that will fuel development and infrastructural growth in the Northern part of Russia, as well as the excuse they may use for larger control over the Arctic, since it may be argued that a large part of Russians lives in the Northern part. The policy document talks about research and foreign investments, but only regarding how this can help economic development or how new resources will be discovered (Davis et al, 2020). Unlike other countries, Russia`s interest in the region is clearly economic and resource-based. And from the amount of arming happening, it is clear that nothing will stop the state from benefiting fully from the Arctic.

(23)

19 Related to the interest in economic development and resources in the Arctic, there are clear indicators that Russia is hoping to finally get access to international waters it has been searching for so long. The Northern Sea route as a preferred trade and shipping route could be significant for Russia. This also could open more notable cooperation with China since the paper also mentions modernizing the railway network making it more accessible for trade. The year-round shipping route throughout the Arctic was mentioned as one of the main objects for research, which further shows how Russia is looking in the direction of the Arctic as their “get rich” plan. It is important to note that the strategy did mention the Arctic Council and the need for it to become more significant in the region (Davis et al, 2020). This can be seen as either Russia wanting to see more be done regarding climate change or the second, which is more probable, Arctic Council having a larger role and managing international law in the region, thus Russia hopes to gain more through it.

Overall Russia`s interests in the region are quite clear. The main priority is economic development and economic benefits through resources, shipping routes, and trade cooperation that can follow with an improved railway network. To phrase the priorities clearly Russia prioritizes resources, trade routes, and sovereignty which is shown through out militarization and security.

5.1.4. Iceland

Like other countries, Iceland has made its Arctic Policy for a longer time with the intention to review it after a while. The most recent Arctic policy paper for Iceland was approved on 28 March 2011. The plan was supposed to be revised in 2020, but no such document can be found online, thus the author suspects, as in many cases, that the Covid-19 pandemic redirected these plans and the timeframe. That is why for analysis the author used the 2011 Iceland’s Arctic Policy paper, as well as the “Iceland’s Arctic Council Chairmanship 2019-2021 Program” to get a better understanding of the current interests of the state.

In 2011, Iceland concluded that it has twelve principles regarding the Arctic. These were: 1) Strengthening the Arctic Council; 2) Securing Iceland's position as a coastal State within the Arctic region; 3) The fact that the Arctic region extends both to the North Pole area proper and the part of the North Atlantic Ocean; 4) Resolving differences that relate to the Arctic on the basis of the UNCLOS; 5) Strengthening and increasing cooperation with the Faroe Islands and Greenland; 6) Supporting the rights of indigenous peoples in the Arctic; 7) Building on agreements and

(24)

20 promoting cooperation with other States; 8) To use all available means to prevent human-induced climate change; 9) Safeguarding broadly defined security interests in the Arctic region through civilian means and working against any kind of militarization of the Arctic; 10) Developing further trade relations between States in the Arctic region; 11) Advancing Icelanders' knowledge of Arctic issues; 12) Increasing consultations and cooperation at the domestic level on Arctic issues (Parliament of Iceland, 2011).

The Arctic Council Chairmanship program shows Iceland`s interest areas when talking about the environment. The environment as a priority is also put forward in the 2011 policy paper. From the Arctic Councils' paper, Iceland`s focus is sustainable development, green energy as alternative and maritime safety. The paper also acknowledges the future prospects of trade and international shipping but claims that this needs to be strongly controlled (Iceland`s Chairmanship, 2019). This side with the fact that the policy paper strongly advocated the Arctic Council and Iceland pursuing it, having a larger role in almost all areas in the Arctic region. Similar to siding with the Arctic Council, Iceland`s policy paper strongly pushes the UNCLOS as the base for all (Parliament of Iceland, 2011). From this the author can gather that, Iceland wants a larger role in the Arctic, as well as to be recognized as an Arctic state. The UNCLOS is of interest to Iceland since it is indicated in the policy paper that this would give them larger sea borders and territories (Parliament of Iceland, 2011). Since Iceland does not have a standing army, security is not talked about much. To round up, Iceland`s top priorities in the Arctic are sustainable development, sovereignty, and international law, and organizations that enforce those international laws.

5.1.5. Denmark (Greenland)

Denmark`s newest Arctic strategy was supposed to be released in 2021, yet at the time of writing this thesis, the author failed to find this document available from any official sources. From the official website of the Kingdom of Denmark, it is published that all the involved governments are currently working on a new strategy for the Arctic for the period 2021-2030. Thus, the analysis here will be done with the “Denmark, Greenland and the Faroe Islands: Kingdom of Denmark Strategy for the Arctic 2011–2020” paper which was first released in 2011. The document available should still be relevant for the analysis since Greenland is not the largest player in the region, thus the conflict/cooperation perspective is quite clear.

(25)

21 The goals for Denmark concerning the Arctic region are 1) peaceful, secure, and safe Arctic; 2) with self-sustaining growth and development; 3) with respect for the Arctic’s fragile climate, environment, and nature; 4) in close cooperation with our international partners (Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark, 2011). In parts where the strategy paper mentions security, it is mostly regarding surveillance. There are indicators that the Kingdom of Denmark which includes Greenland, and the Faroe Islands are mostly focused on cooperation and want to avoid conflict or militarization at almost any cost. As suspected, international law is mentioned many times and compliance with it is vital (Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark, 2011). Yet, while from the security perspective the thought of conflict is unwelcomed, territory and the 200 sea miles that are due from the UNCLOS is indisputable. Similar to other Nordic countries Denmark devotes a large part of the strategy to sustainable development, preserving nature and maritime safety and rescue. Resources are important to Denmark, as well as one of the few states that mention that north tourism is also important. The resources that are mentioned are ores and fish. Since Greenland is part of the Kingdom of Denmark the interest in resources may come from both parts of the government. While for Denmark it may be a way to profit, for Greenland itself it more accessible to a rather large amount of natural resources may be a step in the direction of becoming a state. While in the nearest future that will not be possible with Greenland existing as pretty much ice, the shrinking territory, and available resources thanks to climate change may change that.

Overall, the focus for the Kingdom of Denmark in the region is the environment, sovereignty, and international law as the base for cooperation. While resources are mentioned and the focus of sovereignty is to determine and set borders, it is unlikely that Denmark would prefer conflict over this. Also, environmental concerns are a larger priority since it directly endangers Greenland.

5.1.6. Finland

Unlike other Nordic states, Finland overlooks their Arctic strategy every three or so years. The base was written in 2010 and it was revisited in 2013 while also experiencing some smaller changes in 2016. The newest revisit is happening currently, and Finland’s Arctic strategy should be published in the first half of 2021. Until then the author will use the previous strategies to figure out Finland’s interest areas in the region. The primary document looked at here will be “Finland’s Strategy for the Arctic Region 2013” which was released by the Finnish government on August 23, 2013.

(26)

22 From some sources, it can be read that the 2021 plan, similar to other Nordic states, places the battle against climate change and adaptation to it at the core of Finland's Arctic strategy. The Arctic is warming faster than the rest of the world, posing a serious threat to the region's future. Finland's stance toward the use of fossil fuels in the Arctic exemplifies the disparity between the old and modern strategies (Koivuorva, 2021). Finland will pursue a stronger position for the Arctic Council and support the work of the Arctic Economic Council in its Arctic cooperation plan. All activities in the Arctic must be based on nature's ability to withstand them, the need to protect the environment, the value of sustainable development values, and respect for indigenous peoples' rights. Finland prides itself on being the frontrunner in research and innovations regarding most Arctic issues (Government of Finland, 2013). This is Finland`s main argument when mentioning why the state is the leader in the Arctic region with improving sustainable development and issues that relate to it. Environment and climate change are the biggest priorities for Finland, it is mentioned in every area of their policy paper. The target for a larger role for Arctic Council could be justified as the means for Arctic cooperation. This fits right with Finland`s strong belief that militarization should be avoided at all costs and cooperation is the only reasonable way forward. From a resource point of view, Finland`s focus is on mining as it calls itself the leader in Arctic mining with innovation just like Sweden (Government of Finland, 2013:9). Also, trade routes, shipping, and ice-breaker production are highlighted as top tier for Finland. Yet, from the most recent Finland’s government program it is clear that resources, which include mining as well as trade routes and shipping potential that has not been fully used yet, that the environment comes before all that (Koivuorva, 2021).

While the 2013 policy paper often focuses on the business perspective and how Finland will take advantage of the natural resources when available, the newest talk about the 2021 policy paper shows a different picture. In the paper, Finland`s priority is clear – sustainable development and preserving nature. Thus, from the gathered information the author puts forward Finland’s priorities – sustainable development, research, and cooperation throughout international law and organizations.

5.1.7. Sweden

Sweden`s Arctic Strategy was released on 10 November 2020. The document is named “Sweden's strategy for the Arctic region” and it was released by the Government Offices of Sweden. It is an

(27)

23 updated version of the last policy paper which was released in 2011. Sweden is one of the Arctic Council Member states that does not have direct boarder-access to the sea. Sweden highlights six main priority points in their Arctic region strategy plan - international collaboration, security and stability, climate and the environment, polar research and environmental monitoring, sustainable economic development and business interests, and securing good living conditions (Government Offices of Sweden, 2020:6).

Throughout the policy paper, there are clear indicators that Sweden as the basis for anything regarding the Arctic region is putting the rule of law which in this case is the UNCLOS. The international law perspective in the paper is closely intertwined with the push for cooperation. Yet there are slight indicators that Sweden wants more overall control over the region than just UNCLOS (Government Offices of Sweden, 2020). A similar situation can be observed regarding the Arctic Council. While the paper mentions many times the trust Sweden has for the Council there are some mentions of the need for a larger role for the Council (Government Offices of Sweden, 2020). Both of these facts show that Sweden wants the region to be more under control by a new international organization that acts independently or to sees Arctic Council getting more say. This can be seen as a more democratic tool as well as a way for Sweden to have a bigger say overall. Another similar thing important for Sweden is the rights and future development options for indigenous people. As it was suspected, a large part of the strategy paper was aimed at environmental issues in the region and climate change. Sweden is aiming on becoming the world’s first fossil fuel-free state. The policy paper mentions Sweden pushing for the Paris agreement to be complied with and is willing to take the leading role to ensure that (Government Offices of Sweden, 2020). The environmental perspective seems to be the backbone for the whole strategy because while trade routes, energy resources, and mining resources were mentioned, most of it was regarding making it sustainable and not pushing extraction as a priority. The exception here was the mining of minerals, specifically steel. Yet even there Sweden is focusing on sustainable, carbon-neutral extraction and infrastructure. The slightly noticeable thing was, how the policy paper highlighted Sweden’s remarkable abilities concerning steel extraction. This shows that even if the economic interests are not direct, the states do believe it supposedly is the best suited to extract it. From the security perspective, Sweden as expected highlighted cooperation while acknowledging the threats from recent events regarding Russia. There were some slight mentions of more militarization as a precaution, but not much. The interesting thing here was that the paper

(28)

24 mentions China only once and only regarding security concerns. This may be a tell that cooperation in the region may see a divide with the West on one side and Russia and China on the other. Overall, the focus in the Arctic region for Sweden seems to be environmental and sustainable and strongly pushed cooperation without much direct interest in the resource perspective. The three main priorities for Sweden from the author's point of view in the region are obeying international law, sustainable development, and preserving the environment.

5.1.8. Norway

The paper used to analyze Norway’s interest areas is “The Norwegian Government’s Arctic Policy - People, opportunities and Norwegian interests in the Arctic - Abstract”. The policy paper was released on 26 January 2021 and the abstract is a shorter version of the same document. Norway has direct sea access to the Arctic sea which makes the differences in their priorities in the Arctic differ from Sweden`s.

While in the points put forward, security is not directly mentioned, the importance of it in the document is clear. The third chapter of the document clearly focuses on security, the main Allies, and the main threats (Government of Norway, 2021). As a part of NATO, Norway heavily relies on it for its protection. As mentioned before Norway has been the initiator and organizer for some of the most recent Arctic military exercises which even more shows the high priority the security has for the state. The paper did not directly mention the threat, but there are indicators from which it can be understood that the main threat is Russia. That is primarily due to Russia’s military modernization and growing activity in the North. Norway and Russia both emphasize the Arctic as a large part of their national identity. In terms of national security, both sides are concerned about the threat of coercion from players both within and outside the Barents and Arctic area, thus the cooperation for both states has been a success since it is more beneficial than conflict, at least for now.

In the policy paper, similar to Sweden a large part was dominated by following and abiding by international law. A notable difference was that Norway`s paper included large parts about territorial determination (Government of Norway, 2021). Norway has territorial rights to discover, harvest, conserve, and maintain living and non-living natural resources up to 200 nautical miles from its baselines under the UNCLOS. While it is an important aspect of Norway’s strategy, there are no indicators that tension should grow if the international law order is obeyed. Similar to most

(29)

25 Nordic states environment and climate change are of utmost importance for Norway. Research connected to the environment and Arctic waters are highlighted as important priorities (Government of Norway, 2021). The provocative fact here is that from the resource perspective Norway`s largest interest is fishing. While Norway focuses on safe fishing that does not endanger the climate, this may have limitations regarding marine life. But overall, sustainable development is one of the biggest priorities for Norway. As mentioned before fishing is important for Norway. And while the policy paper did not show interest in traditionally mentioned resources, such as oil and gas, fishing is the area that Norway prioritizes. The warming of the region may benefit the state since it may give easier access to new, further fishing routes.

The overall situation with Norway`s priorities are security and territorial sovereignty, environment and sustainable development and resources, specifically fishing. Not taking into account the fishing perspective the other two show that cooperation to some extent is important for Norway, even more so than a larger quantity of available fish.

5.1.9. Summary

Many areas make the Arctic region interesting. Yet not all the Arctic states are equally interested in all of them. With the content analysis, the author tried to look into and outline each state`s specific priorities. This will benefit the further research with knowing to which areas and which states should be the focus. The policy papers showed that overall, the top priorities are sovereignty, environment, and international law. On one hand, the security perspective was important mostly to large state players like the US, Russia, and Canada. However, it needs to be noted that even if safety and security were not the top priority for all states, it does not mean that it still is not important. It just may indicate that safety is not the biggest concern for a state in the region. This can be mentioned as an indicator for cooperation, since as shown not many states feel safety concerns. On the other hand, sovereignty being a high priority for five states is a direct indicator for the territorial problems and management issues the region haves. Clear signs of a desire for the resources and related economic benefits from the Arctic are shown only by Russia and Norway. It needs to be said that this does not mean that other states would not care for resources and trade routes if they become available. It only shows that the economic area is not a priority. While Russia showed clear interest in all potential gains from natural gas, oil, mining, and shipping routes, Norway`s priority is mostly fishing. It was evident that priorities for many states have changed

(30)

26 quite drastically from the previous Arctic strategies. This was most noticeable for the Nordic states like Sweden, Norway, Finland, Iceland, Denmark, and also Canada. If the previous indicators or research papers showed resources and economic perspective being important for almost all Arctic states, the newest policy papers show the priorities have switched. The main focus is clear – environment and sustainable development. Also, most of the states that prioritize the environment over financial benefits are the ones that pay closer attention to the Indigenous population of the Arctic. From the interest area compilation and analysis, we can notice that several of the areas and problems can only be addressed by cooperation. No one state can fight climate change alone, as well as the Indigenous population cannot be treated fairly by just one state, it needs to be a collective effort. The problem, which the base idea for the thesis, is that the resource and economic branch of the Arctic show it can be fully used only with cooperation, yet the states want to benefit individually. Mixing this with the clear insecurities about sovereignty and security we cannot be sure about the rationality of each state.

From the content analysis, the author has decided that the next part of the analysis will focus on Russia, Norway, Canada, and the US. The decision is based on the information beforehand, the clear indicators to which states are deeply interested in the economic potential of the Arctic, as well as which states highlight Arctic affiliation as important for their cultural identity.

5.2. Case study

As previously obtained information shows, we concluded that the further analysis would focus on these four states – Russia, Norway, Canada, and United States. Yet, this will not mean that the rest of the Arctic states will not be relevant in this analysis. The choice for these four states is because the previous part showed that these states are the ones whose main interests were either directly aimed at economic benefits from the Arctic region or safety and security that directly can lead to conflict. The further text will look deeper into the economic potential’s role for each state while also how this is linked with already existing relationships between these four states. The structure for this part will be divided into three parts, highlighting the interdependence of both the economic branch and security/sovereignty branch as well as the third one being about international law/organizations and environment since those were the areas which were the largest priorities between all Arctic region states. As looked at before, Complex Interdependence is a theory that emphasizes the complex ways in which transnational actors become mutually dependent,

References

Related documents

46 Konkreta exempel skulle kunna vara främjandeinsatser för affärsänglar/affärsängelnätverk, skapa arenor där aktörer från utbuds- och efterfrågesidan kan mötas eller

The increasing availability of data and attention to services has increased the understanding of the contribution of services to innovation and productivity in

Regioner med en omfattande varuproduktion hade också en tydlig tendens att ha den starkaste nedgången i bruttoregionproduktionen (BRP) under krisåret 2009. De

Närmare 90 procent av de statliga medlen (intäkter och utgifter) för näringslivets klimatomställning går till generella styrmedel, det vill säga styrmedel som påverkar

I dag uppgår denna del av befolkningen till knappt 4 200 personer och år 2030 beräknas det finnas drygt 4 800 personer i Gällivare kommun som är 65 år eller äldre i

På många små orter i gles- och landsbygder, där varken några nya apotek eller försälj- ningsställen för receptfria läkemedel har tillkommit, är nätet av

Detta projekt utvecklar policymixen för strategin Smart industri (Näringsdepartementet, 2016a). En av anledningarna till en stark avgränsning är att analysen bygger på djupa

Object A is an example of how designing for effort in everyday products can create space to design for an stimulating environment, both in action and understanding, in an engaging and