Analysis | A Top-Down Worldview: How world maps relegate the Arctic’s importance, and how China is attempting to reshape them
“Today a greater focus on hot wars and threats elsewhere has regressed Arctic threat perception to a level of dangerous complacency.”
Nicole Butler
Maps shape the way we create foreign policy, and geography shapes geopolitics. Although foreign policy, geopolitics, and even geography itself can be fluid over time, the West has relied on roughly the same maps of the world throughout modern history. Although the Arctic’s strategic importance is shifting, America’s prioritization of the region is not. Is the portrayal of the Arctic Ocean and Alaska on our modern maps contributing to a dangerous perception of a diminished threat in the region? A shift in perception of the world map could alter how the United States prioritizes its Arctic foreign policy.
The “Third Front”
As the United States reflected upon its global position and priorities in 1944, Nicholas John Spykman analyzed different types of maps to examine how they shape power perception and bias foreign policy development towards certain U.S. foreign policy goals. Even at this time, the “third front” of the Arctic Ocean came into consideration, and with it a polar map.
From this cartographic perspective, the relationships between the nations residing in the Northern Hemisphere can be perceived differently. For one, the closeness of the United States and Russia is more directly conveyed. Although the United States government seemed to understand this stark geographic vulnerability during the Cold War when steps were taken to prepare for a potential Arctic invasion by the Soviet Union, today a greater focus on hot wars and threats elsewhere has regressed Arctic threat perception to a level of dangerous complacency. Additionally, this style of map demonstrates how the Arctic Ocean should be perceived as a fundamental center of gravity, a destined “hub of all power and movement” in the near future. This is due to the convergence of economic development, resource extraction, and territorial expansion all in a single area, with the added pressure of opportunities for competitive nations to be the first to conquer and control. Despite American spending reaching billions to secure the southern border, America’s northern border is being left wide open. This will have dramatic consequences if the United States is not the only one in control of this hub, which is not an unrealistic future.
Spykman recognized the importance of the Arctic as early as World War II, but 80 years of technological and ecological development in the meantime has thrust the region to even greater importance. Satellite technologies, deep-water ports, and nuclear submarines have made development and militarization much more feasible, while reduced Arctic sea ice has transformed the region’s topography, opening up new shipping lanes and bases for potential military operations. If the region deserved more attention before all these developments, as Spykman argued long ago, it certainly does now.
Today’s conventional world map places the Atlantic Ocean at the center, with Alaska and the Arctic Ocean wedged into one corner appearing far away and disconnected from current wars and threats to the West. This is a dangerous misperception. The position of Alaska alongside the Bering Strait and part of the Northwest Passage geographically grants the United States fundamental Arctic power potential. Modern Western cartography dictates that Alaska is more easily perceived as a neighbor to the Canadian landmass than as a significant player in the Arctic region, and this is how it is commonly treated in policy. Due to the perception that the northern parts of Alaska are minimally populated, have limited potential for economic development, and exist in an inhospitable climate, America’s Arctic remains overlooked and underprioritized in policy. Although these are real barriers, they are only permanent hurdles if the United States chooses for them to be. Joint military exercises and patrols in the region will not suffice without strong individualistic preemptive policy, increased resourcing, and well-supported forces.
Stakes in the Arctic Extend Farther than We Think
As the consequences of climate change develop and geopolitics in other regions shift, nations are looking for alternative alliances and sources of economic development to bolster their geopolitical power through emerging domains. Many are looking to the North. Of course, the highly talked about players are Russia and China, but other powers like Canada, both Korean Republics, and even Brazil hold stakes. Canada remains vehement in protecting its continental shelf claims against Russian expansionist policies which, if lost, would effectively grant Russia geographic monopolization of the far North. Chinese shipping through the Arctic directly affects maritime traffic in the Korea Strait which has the potential to shift geopolitics not only in the Arctic, but also in the Indo-Pacific where many fundamental U.S. alliances lie. And Brazil has persistently been a key exporter of deep-water oil and gas extraction equipment to Arctic nations and has shown interest in becoming more directly involved in the region.
China’s Vertical Map
The recent actions of these players–representing Arctic Council permanent, observer, and non-members–demonstrate how the rest of the world is taking Arctic engagement seriously. However, China is taking it to the next level, reinterpreting its position within Arctic geography altogether. Current governance in the Arctic is based on geography, with the United Nations Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) delineating who is and is not an Arctic nation based on physical territory and continental shelf. Yet, China has taken the perception of its global position so far as to develop alternative maps, such as the vertical world map.
This map places China, the oceans, and the Arctic region as the focal point, quite reminiscent of Spykman’s polar map. This map inevitably shapes how the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and military perceive their role in the region, which influences Arctic policy initiatives. Since the map’s release in 2014, China has announced the Polar Silk Road in 2017, its Arctic Policy and self-declaration as a “near-Arctic state” in 2018, and most recently China’s policy initiative to “take part in the formulation of international rules for domains such as cyberspace, the deep-sea bed, the polar regions, and outer space” according to its 14th Five-Year Plan released in 2021.
A Shift in Perception is Necessary to Compete
China is effectively redrawing the map, and doing so has pushed forth a more aggressive geopolitical perception. Although using a geographically incorrect map for policy purposes is irrational, there is something to be said about the potential for perceptive power that shifting the world map can have on foreign policy development. It is unrealistic to fundamentally change the normative world map in the West; however, a shift in the perception of the Arctic region by American policymakers matters, especially recognizing the true distances between Eurasian powers and America in the Northern Hemisphere as we watch Russian expansion march on from what seems like afar. In reality, we are in no position to remain blissfully ignorant of the realities lying just off the cartographer’s page, because our allies and enemies certainly are not.
Nicole Butler is a research assistant at the Institute for the Study of Diplomacy, and a graduate student in the Security Studies Program at the Walsh School of Foreign Service concentrating in international security.
Interested in learning more about emerging domains or reading more of Nicole’s work? Check out her other articles on the Pouch or visit ISD’s in-depth case studies library and join the faculty lounge to access free instructor copies:
