1. Clive Archer Emeritus Professor Manchester Metropolitan University c.archer@mmu.ac.uk

2. Outline Maritime Security: what is covered Security in the Arctic: from hard to soft The Main Players Instruments of Security Cooperation Other bilateral & multilateral security cooperation Potential Outcomes

3. Maritime Security: what is covered

4. National security of Arctic (and non-Arctic) states versus security of the Arctic maritime region Hard, traditional military security versus Soft, societal, environmental, economic security

5. Hard Security in the Maritime Arctic The history: From 2 nd WW to Cold War Post-1945: securitization of Arctic region: East-West divide Militarization: troops, aircraft, missiles, ships, submarines, radar, C3I Limited access possible & allowed October 1987: Gorbachev’s Murmansk Initiative – shift away from confrontation & from hard security

6. Hard Security in the Maritime Arctic The present New Strategic reality: no Soviet Union, NATO’s link with Russia, shift away from militarisation ‘Leftovers’ from Cold War: USSR  Russia no territorial effect in Arctic; but 2007 flag-planting… New military presence: renewal of Russian military in region: 2 army brigades to Russian Arctic; Russian Bear flights

7. Hard Security in the Maritime Arctic Outstanding issues Outstanding Disagreements : US/Canada; Den/Can; US/Russ; US non-ratification of UNCLOS Questions of access: sea routes Shadow of strategic forces: felt by Norway & Iceland Hard security aspect of new resource & transport issues NATO’s role (see Prof Haftendorn’s ES article)

8. Soft Security : Economic USGS report: 83 bn barrels of oil & 44 tr m3 gas in region. Most in uncontested jurisdiction of one state. Ice melting  Arctic passages open up for most/all year. NW passage: 7,000 km shortcut from US east coast to East Asia. Increased tourism in region. Greater incentive & possibility for economic activity in the region  dangers of outside, non-state threats intentional (terrorism) & unintended (pollution, accidents). Acceptance of need for increased air-sea rescue

9. Soft Security : Economic Current industry plans July-Oct 2012: Shell drilling in Chukchi and Beaufort Sea 2010 & 2011: Cairn drilled 8 wells in Baffin Bay, no commercial discoveries. Partners Statoil for programme ExxonMobil and Rosneft joint plan for drilling in Kara Sea 2012: Gazprom’s platform in the Pechora Sea: production Chevron, Conocophillips and Statoil Arctic licences, plans Norway opening up north Barents Sea for seismic activities in the former disputed area. Later 2012: Greenland’s new licence round for blocks in the North East Greenland (Greenpeace, HofC, EAC, 2012)

10. Soft Security: Environmental Greenpeace : ‘On the surface …in the Arctic…warming is happening twice as fast as anywhere else on the planet’: i.e. increase of c 2 degrees Celsius Estimate loss of 75% of Arctic sea‐ice cap in last 30 yrs (Greenpeace: Evidence to H of C EAC, March 2012) Temperature up by 1.1 degrees C in last 50 years in Arctic  summer ice receding 12% per decade (NSIDC) Differential environmental maritime security consequences for Arctic and non-Arctic regions

11. Record ice-retreat Sept 2007 cf 1970-2000 average (pink)

12. Soft Security: Human/societal security Consequences of environmental changes for indigenous peoples: increased change in life-style Effects of economic development on indigenous peoples: greater intrusion from south – e.g. tourism Wider effects of environmental change, including on European maritime states e.g. UK Maritime security: more human/societal issues involved, especially as indigenous/outsider balance changes

13. Arctic Maritime Security ‘Arctic Meltdown: The Economic and Security Implications of Global Warming’ Scott Borgerson (Foreign Affairs, March/April 2008) OR ‘The Virtual Battle for Nonexistent Resources’ Pavel Baev ‘Russian Policy in the Arctic. A Reality Check’ (2010) ‘Over the next twenty years, a variety of actors and institutions ranging from the EU to NATO to China will challenge the legal and geopolitical status quo pertaining to the Arctic’ Klaus Dodds, 2009

14. The Main Players The Arctic 8 The 5 Coastal States: Russ, US, Can, Den, Nor Outsiders: EU, China, Japan, RoK Non-state players: indigenous peoples (ICC), NGOs, companies: oil & gas, other minerals, fisheries, travel, transport What does maritime security mean to them?

15. ARCTIC COUNCIL

16. Chinese interests in the Arctic from: Source: Chinese Arctic and Antarctic Administration, ; map drawn by Hao Xiaoguang, http://www.hxgmap.com/ in Linda Jakobsen (SIPRI, 2010, p.4) http://www.hxgmap.com/

17. Chinese interests in the Arctic China is 4,000 nm closer to the EU & East coast US sailing through the Arctic Ocean than usual routes September 2010: Hong Kong-flagged Nordic Barents carrying 40,000 tonnes of iron ore left Kirkenes en route to China through the Northeast passage (NEP) China has one large research icebreaker, the Snow Lion (Xuelong) – used for Arctic & Antarctic research China seeks observer status in AC Nordic oil/gas & minerals to China via NEP?

18. Instruments of Security Co-operation UNCLOS: rules & regulations, extent of sovereignty & offshore domain The Arctic Council: just non-security? International Maritime Organization Barents Euro-Arctic Region/Council European Union: Northern Dimension, Arctic policy NATO: remit; relations with Russia Hard & soft security institutions Overlapping confusion or patchwork quilt

19. Other multi- and bi-lateral cooperation Norway-Russia: division of Barents Sea, Statoil, Canada-US: mostly friendly but maritime issues… Nordic Council/of Ministers: Stoltenberg Report: heavy reference to Arctic maritime cooperation Northern Grouping: northern members of NATO developed in last two years Northern Futures Forum: Nordics, Baltics, UK – not so Arctic-oriented

20. Potential Outcomes A Power Politics script: Arctic Ocean as a sea of disputes Resources as the incentive for national competition Arctic melt  greater access, bringing in outside states e.g. China, non-Arctic EU states Region becoming militarised again Russia dominant – needs to be balanced

21. Potential Outcomes A Liberal Institutionalist Vision Arctic Ocean as a sea of cooperation & institutions Mineral resources mostly on land and under national control. Fisheries regulated to an extent. Arctic melt needs to be tackled; opportunities for cooperation economically & environmentally Institutional status needed for outsiders Militarisation not so serious Work with Russia within the institutions

22. UK and Arctic Maritime Security UK push to enhance northern members of NATO: important bilateral links with Norway & Canada. Use of Northern Grouping & Northern Futures Forum Strong UK interest in commercial, transport, environmental and scientific aspects of the Arctic AC as chosen instrument for cooperation: two minds about EU & Arctic Preference for Liberal Institutionalist model & stress on solving soft security issues Possible involvement in Air Sea Rescue