GWYNNE DYER > Race for the Arctic

Print Page Send to friend »
Russian television contacted me last night asking me to go on a program about the race for Arctic resources. The ice is melting fast, and it was all the usual stuff about how there will be big strategic conflicts over the seabed resources – especially oil and gas – that become accessible when it’s gone.

The media always love conflict, and now that the Cold War is long gone, there’s no other potential military confrontation between the great powers to worry about. Governments around the Arctic Ocean are beefing up their armed forces for the coming struggle, so where are the flash-points and what are the strategies? It’s great fun to speculate about possible wars. 

In the end I didn’t do the interview because Skype didn’t work, so I didn’t get the chance to rain on their parade. But here’s what I would have said to the Russians if my server hadn’t gone down at the wrong time:

There are three separate “resources” in the Arctic. On the surface, there are the sea lanes that are opening up to commercial traffic along the northern coasts of Russia and Canada. Under the seabed, there are potential oil and gas deposits that can be drilled once the ice retreats. And in the water in between, there is the planet’s last unfished ocean.

The sea lanes are mainly a Canadian obsession, because the government believes that the Northwest Passage that weaves between Canada’s Arctic islands will become a major commercial artery when the ice is gone. Practically every summer Prime Minister Stephen Harper travels north to declare his determination to defend Canada’s Arctic sovereignty from – well, it’s not clear from exactly whom, but it’s a great photo op.

Canada is getting new Arctic patrol vessels and building a deep-water naval port and Arctic warfare training center in the region, but it’s all much ado about nothing. The Arctic Ocean will increasingly be used as a shortcut between the North Atlantic and the North Pacific, but the shipping will not go through Canadian waters. Russia’s “Northern Sea Route” will get the traffic, because it’s already open and much safer to navigate.

Then there are the hydrocarbon deposits under the Arctic seabed, which the U.S. Geological Survey has forecast may contain almost one-fourth of the world’s remaining oil and gas resources. But from a military point of view, there’s only a problem if there is some disagreement about the seabed boundaries.

There are only four areas where the boundaries are disputed. Two are between Canada and its eastern and western neighbors in Alaska and Greenland, but there is zero likelihood of a war between Canada and the United States or Denmark (which is responsible for Greenland’s defense).

In the Bering Strait, there is a treaty defining the seabed boundary between the United States and Russia, signed in the dying days of the Soviet Union, but the Russian Duma has refused to ratify it. However, the legal uncertainty caused by the dispute is likelier to deter future investment in drilling there than to lead to war.

And then there was the seabed boundary dispute between Norway and Russia in the Barents Sea, which led Norway to double the size of its navy over the past decade. But last year the two countries signed an agreement dividing the disputed area right down the middle and providing for joint exploitation of its resources. So no war between NATO (of which Norway is a member) and the Russian Federation.

Which leaves the fish, and it’s hard to have a war over fish. The danger is rather that the world’s fishing fleets will crowd in and clean the fish out, as they are currently doing in the Southern Ocean around Antarctica.

If the countries with Arctic coastlines want to preserve this resource, they can only do so by creating an international body to regulate the fishing. And they will have to let other countries fish there too, with agreed catch limits, since it is mostly international waters. They will be driven to cooperate, in their own interests.

So no war over the Arctic. All we have to worry about now is the fact that the ice IS melting, which will speed global warming (because open water absorbs far more heat from the sun than highly reflective ice), and ultimately melt the Greenland icecap and raise sea levels worldwide by seven meters (23 feet). But that’s a problem for another day.

Gwynne Dyer is a London-based independent journalist whose articles are published in 45 countries.


PRINTER FRIENDLY Send to friend »


Notice on comments

Red Tail

8/5/2012 2:28:54 PM

The people doing the interview with Mr Dyer must be really thrifty. He wrote "In the end I didn’t do the interview because Skype didn’t work, ". What they are saying is that if we have to pay for the phone call, it is not worth talking to Mr Dyer. If we can not speak for free, forget about it. I would never have accepted such an interview. If they are not even willing to pay the cost of the phone, I am not going to give them my time for an interview.

Blue Dotterel

8/4/2012 11:46:34 PM

Turk Uzan, WWI stared when an Austrian Crown prince was shot by a Serb. The failures in diplomacy over the past ten years have been building up in a similar way to those prior to WWI (and even WWII), so that a minor incident, not under control of the major powers may lead to disaster. Just imagine what an FSA attack on the Russian base in Tartus might lead to, or the assasination of prominent Israeli politicians. Study history!

Turk Uzan

8/4/2012 2:17:38 PM

@ Blue Dotterel, if you believe that any major power (US, Russia or China) would get militarily involved or declare war to each other for Syria or any other conflict in the region you're gravely mistaken. If the US would invade Syria tomorrow, Russia would make a few statements, the US would once again destroy it's image. But that's about it. Russia will NEVER risk a full on war vs NATO, nor will they start one. They would support Assad vs the US, but that's about it. They wouldn't send troops

Blue Dotterel

8/4/2012 2:37:28 AM

"There’s no other potential military confrontation between the great powers to worry about". Mr. Dyer, you seem to be forgeting about the very serious conflict now unfolding in the Middle East. The great powers are intimately involved with each having battleships in the Eastern Mediterranean, and soon the Persian Gulf.
< >



AcerPro S.I.P.A HTML & CSS Agency