The Arctic is one of the world’s most vulnerable areas regarding climate change, being very sensitive to rising temperatures. In the Anthropocene epoch, the Arctic's “surface air temperatures have warmed at approximately twice the global rate”. Additionally, the ocean has lost a significant part of its permafrost due to global warming.
While these environmental changes are often perceived as a global catastrophe, the melting of the North Pole’s ice cap also presents a silver lining for the Arctic nations (Canada, Denmark, Norway, Russia and the US). Indeed, it eases “access to promising new trade routes and untapped fossil fuel resources”, leading to a growing interest vis-à-vis the Arctic on the political arena. In particular, discussions on borders and a stronger military presence have become a central political element in the far north.
By acknowledging such a situation, the present blog-post will try to understand to what extent the Anthropocene is contributing to a de-peripheralisation of the Arctic area in international political discourses. De-peripheralisation implies a “cartographic shift in perception”, a change in the discourses and understandings related to a geographical area, extracting it from the peripheral position to which it had previously been relegated.
An Anthropocene-led de-peripheralisation of the Arctic The argument for an Anthropocene-led de-peripheralisation of the Arctic holds that, due to human-induced climate change, the global perception of the Arctic’s geo-strategic importance is expanding and is nowadays piquing the interest of the Arctic powers:
“The growing alarm over the impact of climate change upon the Arctic [demonstrates] that a region which for all of the Twentieth Century was pushed to the side […] has the potential to take centre stage as state interests are awoken and global concerns advance.”
The increased interest towards the region is firstly linked to economic concerns: the melting of the ice cap renders the Arctic an “ocean of opportunities”. Secondly, with the Arctic being more accessible and exploitable, a race/conflict for resources in the region could emerge and discussions on borders are coming to the centre stage in the international arena.
An ocean of opportunities Many scholars and civil servants associate the recent de-peripheralisation of the Arctic in international relations discourse with the augmented economic potential that climate change is uncovering in the region, for the Arctic nations and beyond. For instance, China defines itself as a “Near-Arctic State'' and is manifesting its interest in the opening up of a potential “Arctic silk road [which] would represent a noticeable reduction in the time and cost of circum-continental transportation”. Scholars thus identify the Anthropocene and climate change as the impulse behind the “very recent start of Chinese Arctic diplomacy”. Similarly, for what concerns energy resources, “according to the 2008 United States Geological Survey, the Arctic is expected to hold about 22 percent of the world’s undiscovered conventional oil and natural gas resources.” Therefore, the Arctic seems to be de-peripheralised in international politics given its strategic importance for energy provision. For instance, Russian President Vladimir Putin declared in 2019 that “the Arctic accounts for over 10 percent of all investments in the Russian Federation [and its importance] in the Russian economy will only grow further”.
Border discussions
Moreover, the Arctic is also increasingly present in the international arena since border discussions are becoming of vital importance for the Arctic powers. Delimiting the zone in which each nation is sovereign in order to exploit the underlying natural resources is key to prevent competition or resource wars in the region, in particular with regard to the continental shelf. Countries are submitting continental shelf claims to the UN, ultimately leading to the implementation of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS), to facilitate the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. However, as evidenced by multiple cases, national claims often overlap. As such, climate change has uncapped the decisive question of how to assess the limit of each nation’s zone of exploitation. This is vital since “without well-defined boundaries, the possibility of conflicts over the right to utilise resources increases dramatically”.
Conclusions Undeniably, climate change is modifying the Arctic. International interest has skyrocketed due to the melting of its permafrost, rendering the region more accessible and exploitable.
However, applying the de-peripheralisation idea to the Arctic region could be seen as inappropriate. The Arctic was never a neglected region from a geopolitical point of view, but rather a space with a long record of exploration and militarism that the de-peripheralisation argument might fail to recognise. In fact, the de-peripheralisation theory, which holds that the potential of the Arctic has come into play because of climate change, might reflect a limited vision of the region’s history, thereby reshaping center/periphery relations in historical terms.
Moreover, the argument of an anthropocene-led de-peripheralisation of the Arctic has to be complemented by the awareness that there are factors other than climate change contributing to the increased interest in the region, for example the military build-ups by Russia in reaction to its international isolation or by NATO as a balance of power technique.
Written by Sofia Galeotti
Commenti