9 October 2013 Mia Bennett Beyond Border Lines: Sovereignty and Foreign State- Owned Enterprises in the Arctic

Outline 1.Foreign state-owned enterprises in the Arctic 2.Conventional theories of sovereignty 3.Rethinking sovereignty 4.Importance of infrastructure 5.Case studies a.Asian SOEs in the Arctic b.Greenland c.Iceland 6.Implications for sovereignty in the Arctic

Murmansk Speech “We have an interest in inviting, for instance, Canada and Norway to form mixed firms and enterprises for developing oil and gas deposits of the shelf of our northern seas. We are prepared for relevant talks with other states as well.” -Mikhail Gorbachev, 1987

Foreign state-owned enterprises national oil companies

Foreign state-owned enterprises 75% of global crude oil reserves and production Source: Congressional Research Service, 2007

Foreign state-owned enterprises “To the extent that state-owned firms reach across borders, they may become vehicles for geopolitical influence, particularly those dealing in key strategic resources such as energy.” (U.S. National Intelligence Council, 2008: 11)

Conventional view of sovereignty “The appearance of a centralized power which exercised its law making and law enforcing authority within a certain territory.” (Morgenthau 1948: 341)

Conventional view of sovereignty Credit: Winfried K. Dallmann

Rethinking sovereignty But sovereignty is not necessarily state-based, absolute, or territorial.

Rethinking sovereignty Photo: Jonas Karlsbakk

Importance of infrastructure split extractive-civilian society Photo: Pius Utomi Ekpei/AFP/Getty

Importance of infrastructure Photo: Patrick Endres/AlaskaPhotoGraphics Closed to public access

Importance of infrastructure “Instead of playing up its navigation and resource interests in the area, China should emphasize its identity as a ‘public goods provider’ to non-state actors, like residents, local governments and enterprises and promote cooperation with them.” Baozhi, 2013, in The Beijing Review

Asian state-owned enterprises ChinaKoreaJapan

Asian state-owned enterprises

Case study: Greenland 1945: U.S. offers $1.3 billion in inflation-adjusted dollars 2010: Denmark’s subsidy = $636 million (34% of Greenland’s GDP) 2013: London Mining Company: $2.35 billion Returns of $5.18 billion over 15 years  $345 million annually 54% of Denmark’s subsidy Photo: Crux Kommunikasjon London Mining

Case study: Iceland Photo: Mia Bennett

Implications for Arctic sovereignty Credit: International Boundaries Research Unit, Durham University

Implications for Arctic sovereignty Photo: KOGAS Canada Ltd. Photo: Financial Times

Richness Resilience Responsibility Mia Bennett Photo: Greenpeace