Mistra Arctic Futures Annual Report 2011 (pdf)

characterises the international politics of the region. Beneath
this cooperation, however, there is a growing national dimension
of Arctic policy tied to issues of identity, sovereignty and the
future exploitation of resources. This suggests that the regional
cohesion of the Arctic may be subject to future fragmentation.
While the Arctic Council is coming in to its own as a sub-regional
organization, the Arctic is far from the form and level of
integration of, for example, the European Union, where shared
norms and even shared sovereignty is the basis for a stable and
peaceful cooperation over time. Is such integration possible for
the Arctic And does it make sense for the states in the region to
cooperate on issues beyond those that are unique to the Arctic
Is the cooperation that we are witnessing in the region the result
of short-term strategic interests shared by the littoral Arctic
states or is it something more permanent that may survive after
the process of maritime boundary delimitation is over
At the same time that regional integration is being pursued
by the Arctic states, other actors are seeking to integrate the
Arctic into broader regional and international contexts. The
EU is keen to assert its presence in the Arctic and to link the
Arctic to a broader European space. Smaller sub-regional
formations, for example the Baltic region, are exploring how
they will relate to the Arctic. Global actors such as China and
India have proposed that the Arctic should be seen as a part
of the international community and a global resource. As the
Arctic geography continues to open, a key issue will be how the
Arctic as a political region will be defined and which actors will
play a leading role in shaping that definition. Future research
will be required to examine the various, and often competing,
conceptions of the boundaries of the Arctic region and how
the Arctic is to be integrated into the wider international
community.
Domestic Politics and Arctic Foreign Policy
Foreign policy is not created in a vacuum isolated from domestic
politics. The policies of Arctic states reflect the constellation
of domestic interests, as much as being a response to actual
challenges posed by changes in the Arctic region. Attempting
to take the interests of a variety of domestic actors into
account calls attention to important dynamics and processes
that might otherwise be overlooked. The often diametricallydifferent
internal situations in the Arctic countries explain, to a
significant degree, the differences in Arctic policies. This is also
true for non-Arctic states with a perceived interest in the Arctic,
including the highly complex and opaque domestic politics of
China.
Looking ahead, to understand the evolving approaches to
the Arctic of various Arctic ‘insider’ and ‘outsider’ nations will
involve a detailed mapping of the domestic sources of foreign
and security policy and how these interests are developing as
the Arctic changes. Understanding better the complex internal
dynamics driving Arctic policy will also be necessary for building
successful cooperation in the region in the future.
The Arctic as a Region for the Projection of Global
Power Relations
Though one of the most remote and inaccessible regions
of the world, the Arctic is not immune to the pressures of
globalization. This is manifested as Arctic communities face new
challenges, but also politically as the region becomes integrated
into the geopolitics of global power relations. The rise of new
large consumer markets, notably in China and India, is shifting
the dynamics of economic power and driving a transformation
of military and security affairs. All of these developments have
implications for the Arctic region.
A decision made on maritime delimitation in the Arctic can
influence developments in the Strait of Hormuz. The Arctic can
become part of wider bilateral relations, such as the difficult
relationship between Norway and China over the award of the
Nobel Peace Prize to a Chinese dissident, which has recently
become linked to Norway’s position on China’s application for
permanent observer status in the Arctic Council. The future
development of Arctic resources and transportation could have
far-reaching impacts on economies and societies in Asia and
Africa. Identifying the ways in which the Arctic is linked to the
wider emerging international political economy is a priority
issue for understanding the fast-changing nature of global
order.
PROJECT STRUCTURE AND ORGANIZATION
Project Leadership
• Dr. Neil Melvin: 25% of time working on the Arctic project since April
2011. Melvin has extensive experience both as a researcher and as a policy
practitioner. Prior to joining SIPRI he held Senior Adviser positions in the
Energy Charter Secretariat and the Organization for Security and Co-operation
in Europe. He has also worked at a variety of leading policy institutes in
Europe. Melvin has published widely on issues of conflict, with a particular
focus on ethno-religious issues. In recent years he has broadened his research
interests to consider the impact of resources on conflict, notably the issue
of energy and conflict. Melvin joined SIPRI as Director of the Programme on
Armed Conflict and Conflict Management in May 2010.
• Dr. Linda Jakobson: 10% of time working on the Arctic project since April
2011. Jakobson is the East Asia Program Director at the Lowy Institute for
International Policy in Sydney. Jakobson has lived and worked in China for
close to 20 years and published six books on Chinese and East Asian society.
A Mandarin speaker, she has published extensively on China’s foreign policy,
the Taiwan Straits, China’s energy security, and climate change and science,
technology polices and China’s Arctic policies. Prior to joining Lowy, Jakobson
served as Director of the China and Global Security Programme and Senior
Researcher at SIPRI.
Building a Security Architecture for the Arctic Region
The current political climate in the Arctic is one of cooperation
rather than competition or even conflict. In the long term,
however, one cannot disregard the risks of a rise in interstate
tension due to the environmental, social and economic changes
that are taking place in the region. Will the willingness of
Arctic states to cooperate change as maritime borders become
delineated under the UNCLOS framework Will the military
build-up that is underway in the region, although limited, lead
to misunderstandings and suspicion
The Arctic region is currently largely outside existing security
frameworks. Four of the five littoral states are NATO members,
but an enhanced NATO presence is not welcomed by Russia,
or even Canada. As attention to the Arctic grows, so does the
number of initiatives to address the security issue. These include
Research Staff
• Kristofer Bergh: Bergh has been employed full time on the Arctic project
since April 2011. Bergh is a researcher with the SIPRI Armed Conflict and
Conflict Management Programme. He joined SIPRI as an intern in January
2009 and has since worked on several projects.
• Ekaterina Klimenko: Klimenko has been employed full time on the Arctic
project since September 2011. Klimenko is a recent graduate from the
University of Geneva, where she submitted a research thesis on the issue
of regional security complexes. She has previously worked as a Research
and Training Assistant in the OSCE Academy in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan, and
has been an Intern at the OSCE Secretariat.
• Jingchao Peng: Peng works part time on the Arctic project as the Beijingbased
Research Assistant for SIPRI China and Global Security Programme.
He holds a Bachelor’s degree from the University of International Relations
in Beijing. His key areas of interest are China’s foreign policy and China
and the High North.
stepping up military–to–military contacts, efforts to build
political contacts at the defence-minister level, and proposing
the creation of a new security architecture for the Arctic region.
The Arctic Council is, however, limited in its mandate to discuss
issues of hard security; security discussions today are comprised
of a patchwork of bi- and multilateral efforts, none of them
employing a holistic Arctic perspective.
With political relations in the Arctic region currently broadly
positive, there is a unique opportunity to design and build
mechanisms and interfaces to promote security confidence in
the region that can anticipate and reduce future tensions. In
developing this research agenda, SIPRI will seek to draw on its
extensive experience from similar exercises in Europe, Central
Asia and the Korean Peninsula.
PAGE 40 ARCTIC FUTURES 2011 ARCTIC FUTURES 2011 PAGE 41