The development of Arctic energy resources poses the potential for an energy security competition between the Great Powers and Arctic stakeholders that will alter the geopolitical climate. The hydrocarbon reserves – 25% of world deposits- available under the melting ice caps, and undiscovered oil and gas will see states shifting their economic and foreign policy priorities. New shipping lanes could alter the world economy as trade routes become faster and safer, but will also become a source of conflict. As world populations and energy consumption increases and supplies decrease, states will seek to maximize interests out of Arctic exploration.
The United States and other Arctic Council members must check the exploration and production ambitions of Russia and China to prevent a great power game developing. A cohesive policy between member states and international institutions will be vital in preventing a resource competition that could have severe economic, political, military and environmental implications.
The flag planting by a Russian submarine in August 2007 underneath the Arctic seabed symbolized Russia’s intentions to use Arctic exploration as a means of securing its desired imperial status – pursuing a zero-sum game. The Kremlin plans to establish a new international order in which it becomes a regional hegemon. It is my opinion that Russia intends to end its role as an isolated entity in international affairs, becoming closely integrated with the global economy and dictating policy. Russian officials view the Arctic as securing its energy security ambitions for the next century. Dwindling Russian gas and energy reserves, in the underdeveloped Siberian fields, and over-reliance on European imports of its natural gas has led to a push towards the Arctic. Russia’s jurisdictional claim over the Arctic seabed will challenge the existing international law criteria, the UNCLOS, which specifies jurisdictional authority over international waters.
Arctic stakeholders must be wary of Russian intentions over Arctic development, considering the nationalistic rhetoric of the current government in power. Russia’s nationalized energy companies maintain an influence in formulating Arctic Policy and influencing the Russian government to their advantage. Russia will also use its energy security policy in the Arctic to become a naval superpower as new shipping lanes for trade and energy production will run along its extensive northern coastline.
Russia’s actions in Crimea and the Ukraine emphasize their willingness to revert to military action over issues of territorial sovereignty and that the U.S. requires an assertive foreign policy with Russia. Ensuing competition over Arctic energy resources and shipping lanes will increase geopolitical competition among the Great Powers. The Bering Sea provides the U.S. with access to Arctic shipping lanes and can act as a strategic counterbalance to Russia. The U.S. Geological Survey estimates that 13% and 30% of the world’s undiscovered oil and natural gas respectively lies under the Arctic seabed. I believe that Arctic Council members, the Nordic States and Canada, will align with the U.S. to impose strict restrictions over extraction and production in the Arctic Ocean.
International law and conventions can only be implemented if supported by U.S. diplomacy in international institutions. Domestic and multi-national energy companies must continue their innovation in technology to finance exploration in competition with foreign NOCs.
Regional competition with its East Asian neighbors, South Korea and Japan, for energy security will lead to an assertive foreign policy from China to lead Asian exploration in the Arctic. China’s pursuance of energy resources in the Arctic and use of new shipping lanes along Russia’s coast line will increase tensions between the two states as they strive to become naval superpowers.
The Chinese government has maintained that they have no clear agenda regarding its Arctic Policy. However, China still harbors ambitions of becoming a regional hegemon and for energy diversification away from fossil fuels to satisfy its population and production demands. China’s application for permanent observer status in the Arctic Council signifies their intention to influence Arctic Policy despite their inferior geographic location. Access to the Arctic shipping lanes will significantly reduce risks and costs for Chinese trade to the West via the Northern Sea Route.
The U.S’s relatively superior military and economic resources and growing energy self-sufficiency means it must implement policies that will satisfy world energy security demands through Arctic development. The United States must use its clout within the Arctic Council to check the imperial ambitions of Russia and the vast energy demands of China through effective State and Energy Department mandates. In my opinion, an inability to do this will threaten a return to Cold War geopolitics, increasing the risk of energy security competition and Great Power military conflict.
Conor O’Sullivan, 2015 M.S. Candidate at NYU’s Center for Global Affairs, International Relations Concentration.
