We Need to Discuss Arctic Security.
Why Arctic states need a forum for military security issues
In October 1987, Mikhail Gorbachev spoke of the “Murmansk Initiative”, in which he declared that the Arctic should be a “zone of peace” and an arena of cooperation. For the past three decades, Arctic countries have collaborated significantly on common issues facing the region, namely environmental protection, economic initiatives, and sustainable development. These activities only increased after the 1996 founding of the Arctic Council, arguably the principal multilateral forum for Arctic policymaking. This cooperative body serves to cover issues of economic, environmental, and human security. Together, these factors resulted in the scaling back of military activities in the region.
Yet, as climate change becomes an ever-present and pressing issue, the Arctic is becoming a region of increasing global significance due to its strategic and economic value. The Arctic is warming, on average, more than twice the global rate, resulting in Arctic sea ice melting for extended periods of time. This creates an opportunity for increased activity in the region and invites the possibility of military confrontation. Ideals of ‘Arctic exceptionalism’ are slipping away. The Arctic is facing mounting military pressure that can no longer be ignored. Arctic states need a forum through which they can address military security concerns.
Over the past decade, Russia has been investing in its Northern Fleet, revamping its military capabilities in the Arctic, as well as building new and re-opening old Cold War military bases in its Arctic territory. Norway is planning to deploy P-8A Poseidon surveillance aircraft to the Arctic by 2022. The United States has reactivated its second fleet and recent strategic documents from the Navy, Air Force, and Army show increased military interest in the Arctic. These factors have created a pressing need for a military-focused forum for Arctic states to ensure the security and stability of the region. Even Russia’s Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov, has appealed to Arctic States to continue military meetings due to the rising regional tensions.
A consequence of the current situation is the re-emergence of a security dilemma in the region. As countries like the United States and Norway begin to build up their military activities and capabilities, it justifies Canadian and Finnish military activation or Russian expansion in response. This poses a risk of escalation if not addressed. With activity in the region rising, both commercially and militarily, it is crucial to ensure that incidents in the Arctic do not develop into dangerous disputes. The best way to avoid such situations is to create a dedicated forum for regular discussion of defense issues in order to avoid miscalculation or miscommunication among Arctic countries.
In discussions surrounding the development of a military forum, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) should not be overlooked. Four out of five Arctic littoral states are NATO members and should be considered in the dialogues surrounding regional security. If direct conflict were to arise, NATO may find itself involved. Additionally, Arctic security and politics are increasingly connected to global issues, such as the environment, trade, and energy. Proponents of NATO, then, say that this body is the right one in which to cover Arctic security concerns due to its global reach and established legitimacy.
However, many problems would arise if NATO were the main forum for matters of Arctic security and defense. The issue of greatest concern is that NATO-Russian relations are tense. After the 2014 Ukraine crisis, relations between Russia and NATO diminished, almost entirely breaking apart. Russia is very wary of NATO member states' intentions, including the institution’s supposed expansionary goals. Moreover, Russia may be unwilling to engage in any forum structured around NATO due to past negotiation failures. The NATO — Russia Council has not been successful in previous missile discussions in 2018 and, from 2008–2014, in talks over joint missile defense. Trying to broaden NATO’s influence to the Arctic as the forum for security issues places NATO members in direct contention with Russian desires and concerns.
An added complication is that NATO cannot fully represent the Arctic Western bloc. While NATO covers four out of five littoral states, it only represents five out of eight Arctic states. In addition to Russia, the alliance fails to incorporate Sweden and Finland. Although the countries are part of the Partnership for Peace program and often take part in military exercises alongside NATO members, they are in a notable position in terms of geographic location and security issues. In 2018, Russia conducted a submarine missile exercise off the coast of Finland and ran invasion exercises onto Gogland, an island in the Russian-controlled region of the Gulf of Finland. This has heightened tensions between Russia and Nordic countries. Russia is clearly signaling to the West that it is prepared to take action against signs of threat. Using NATO as the main deliberative body would reinforce Russian beliefs that NATO has expansionist intentions, trying to incorporate both Sweden and Finland further into the alliance. Therefore, increased NATO involvement in Arctic issues will cause greater hard security concerns.
If not NATO, then what should be done? There are already some alternative options. The Arctic Council has made it evident that it does not want to become a body for security or military discussions. However, it is the forum with the most authority and legitimacy in the region and has been successful in managing cooperation and finding consensus between the Arctic states on a plethora of issues. Due to the changing nature of the region, environmentally and politically, it would not be a stretch to expand the council’s responsibilities.
The most promising option is the Arctic Security Forces Roundtable (ASFR). Founded in 2011, the ASFR brings together military leaders focused on improving communications and maritime domain awareness in the Arctic Circle. This body includes representatives from Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Russia, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Since 2014, the ASFR has excluded Russia due to its actions in Ukraine. The ASFR was established as a forum for open and constant multilateral dialogue. Its success in finding common ground on policy is well suited for the future of Arctic defense and security discussions. However, it must bring Russia back to the table and get the United States to accept the country’s membership. The Arctic needs a forum that addresses military issues without increasing military tensions and the ASFR can achieve that as it is less contentious than NATO.
While there is legitimacy to the perspective that Arctic issues are global issues, which should result in a wider-reaching forum, it does not mean there should not be a regional discussion happening as well. Revitalizing the ASFR by inviting Russia back will build trust surrounding regional security issues among the member states and encourage the continuation of cooperation that has been present in the Arctic for so long. The forum focuses on sharing information and improving communication which will preserve regional stability and collaboration. The rapid rate of climate change is only opening the region more, ensuring that Arctic activity and militarization will not go away anytime soon. Now is the time for Arctic states to begin this discussion.
Photo Credit: National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
