The Arctic Region as a Space for Trans-disciplinary, Resilience and Peace

1 It was organized under the auspices of the Russian Federation Security Council in cooperation with the Northern (Arctic) Federal University, NArFU.

How come have not the prognoses of emerging conflicts in, or a ‘scramble’ for, the Arctic been, yet, materialized? And why is the achieved, man-made Arctic stability so resilient? An answer lies on the fact that the stable and cooperative Arctic is so valuable for its states and peoples in the era of globalization. The post-Cold War has been a successful due to the shift from military confrontation into political stability and growing international cooperation — there are only winners [1]. This is seen how the Kingdom of Denmark and Russia play according to the rules of the United Nations’ Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), when they submitted their proposals on the Arctic Ocean’s shelves to the UN’s Commission — the proposals compete, the states cooperate within the Arctic Council.

This also shows the power of immaterial values, such as peace, human capital and that of cumulative, ‘soft’ methods in politics and governance [2,3]. They have made possible the creativity of the Arctic region, as the following examples show:

• a.    first, new kind of environmental governance by the international Polar Bear Agreement;

• b.    second, self-determination and self-governing of indigenous peoples (e.g. the Home Rule of Greenland);

• c.    third, devolution, welfare state and peace based on the Nordic model (e.g., The Nordic Peace 2003)[4];

• d.    fourth, traditional environmental knowledge for example, by the Sami Council;

• e.    fifth, cooperation on environmental protection by the Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy (AEPS);

• f.    sixth, policy-shaping in the structures of the Arctic Council;

• g.    seventh, new knowledge on climate change by the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA) report and learned lessons by the success stories of the Arctic Human Development Report (AHDR);

• h.    eighth, the University of the Arctic;

• i.    ninth, ‘para-diplomacy’ in Greenland and the Russian Arctic (e.g., Ackren 2014)[5];

• j.    tenth, implementation of the interplay between science and politics by the Northern Research Forum;

• k.    eleventh, an online platform for academic and other dialogue via the Arctic Yearbook, an international and interdisciplinary peer-viewed on-line publication (see: www.arcticyearbook.com ).

Now the post-Cold War era has come to a close in the Arctic in many ways. A new Arctic security and political agenda is emerging. It is more demanding due to the reflections of regional wars, the constant warfare against international terror, and flows of globalization. As well as due to ‘Grand challenges’ as main drivers, such as long-range pollution and climate change, and ethical questions concerning the mass-scale utilization. Finally, that the Anthropocene is at play in the Arctic — it is the most recent stage of geological evolution, where industrial civilization has itself become a geological force, as well as a potential tipping point for the global EarthSystem [6]. Here the Arctic states and their state-owned enterprises much influence future development by choosing either to prioritize business activities only, or have more holistic approach by taking into consideration the peoples and the environment, for example by focusing on clean technology.

In the GlobalArctic Project (see: we consider the Arctic region in the 2010s to have become part and parcel of global political, economic, technological and environmental, as well as societal, changes. The future of the region is not any more in the hands of Arctic actors alone. Correspondingly, what happens in the Arctic has significant implications worldwide. Indeed, there is a growing pressure from outside the region by the AC observer countries in Asia and Europe, and TNCs as global actors. The Arctic has seen as one of the global commons, but misinterpreted to mean a permission to share the resources by outsiders, when this should mean to take care of the Arctic and its unique ecosystem and climate > the Arctic region with its rich biodiversity and diversity of culture is for its nations, as well as the humankind.

Why to try to find old solutions for this situation of grand challenges. Since the Anthropocene has already created the ‘ Arctic Paradox’ — the faster we use fossil fuels, the sooner we get access to new hydrocarbons, they contribute to climate warming which in turn makes the Arctic sea-ice melt and new oil and gas recourses available [7] — the answer cannot be more mass-scale utilization by extractive industries. Arctic actors have shown being able to be innovative and resilient. We will continue on this track, if the Arctic states are patient to implement their commitment to the well-being of the inhabitants, the protection of the Arctic environment and sustainability, as they affirmed when establishing the Arctic Council in 1996 [8]. These commitments have earned legitimacy among the people(s) and civil societies of the Arctic region.

One of the criteria of science is its social relevance, i.e. that science is more than labs and theories, it is people, societies, the environment — this is recently also called science diplomacy. This include the interplay between science, politics and economics, and its implementation, as it was done in the very international meeting of the Arctic Council member states. I’m a political scientist, as well as I’m a citizen, and my role, even a duty, is to distribute my research findings to the public and share my knowledge, as well as thoughts, with my own civil society and the global community. Even when they are not along the mainstream, or not at the first stage supported by most of the decision-makers.

In the Arctic context this means that I cannot admit — and have not admitted — that there are emerging conflicts between the Arctic states due to recent regional conflicts and the sanctions between the USA / the EU and Russia, if I cannot identify them. The intergovernmental cooperation under the auspices of the Arctic Council continues, and the scientific cooperation in Arctic research is stronger than ever. According to the Toyama Conference Statement (at the ICARP III and ASSW 2015 in April 2015 in Toyoma, Japan) “[T]he Arctic remains a region of geopolitical stability which is a precondition for sustaining Arctic research”2.

The Arctic states and nations, including the Russian Federation and the USA, have too much at stake, if they will lose the high stability of the Arctic and the solid foundation for international cooperation there. I believe that none of us would like to open a new front in the Arctic — we are experienced and wise enough not to do so. This was also the message of our scientific report, Russian Strategies in the Arctic: Avoiding a New Cold War [9].

Of course, bad things can happen, and the new situation with challenges and uncertainty has put the stability into the first real test. If the Arctic states and the existing structures — supported by the civil societies — will pass the test, we reach new experiences and gain credibility to face the real challenges of the 21st century: global environmental problems, such as long-range pollution, climate change; and the so-called ‘wicked’ problems, such as the greedy global financing system, growing inequality, a new geopolitical disorder and (new) wave of terrorism due to the unstable Middle East, wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria, and the ISIS. Finally, that new ethical questions have emerged in future development - loss of biodiversity, the mass-scale offshore exploitation in a fragile ecosystem - raises the question of an ‘ultimate price’ that will be accepted to be paid in the Arctic and globally, if the current development will be continued [10].

Even more, in the front of us there will be new opportunities to find solutions for these ‘grand challenges’, or even wicked problems, i.e. whether ‘industrial civilization’ is capable and willing to slow down and eventually cease fossil fuel-based development. The current state of Arctic stability and deep cooperation together with rapid transformations occurring in the region and affecting the entire Earth System, and the new economic interests in the Arctic have established the region as a larger player in world politics and the global economy. This makes the Arctic — with its high stability, innovations, human capital and the ‘unity-in-diversity’ approach — a potentially interesting case study for further studies on the environment, climate change, stability- and peace-building in IR, and new forms of shaping regional and global governance.

Briefly to conclude the Arctic, not overtly plagued by conflicts, can be seen an exception in international politics, as is the International Space Station. It might, as well as Iran after the nuclear deal, become a new metaphor for ‘Exceptionalism’ and taken as an example how to shape alternative premises of security and politics. Here to maintain and further develop the interplay between science and politics, that between scientific knowledge and traditional/local knowledge, as well as trans-disciplinarily, is critical.