Mr. Bipandeep Sharma, Research Analyst, Non-Traditional Security Centre, Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, spoke on the “Changing Security Dynamics in the Arctic” at the Monday Morning Meeting held on 25 July 2022. The meeting was chaired by Dr. Uttam Kumar Sinha, Centre Coordinator, Non-Traditional Security Centre, MP-IDSA. Ambassador Sujan R. Chinoy, Director General, MP-IDSA, Maj. Gen. (Dr.) Bipin Bakshi (Retd.), Deputy Director General, MP-IDSA, and the scholars of the institute participated in the meeting.

Executive Summary

The Arctic region remains globally connected in an environmental and geopolitical context. In the backdrop of the Ukraine crisis, the Arctic region is witnessing intense rivalry with high probability of militarisation. The focus of the states in the region has once again shifted towards high politics and the traditional notions of security. The space for cooperation that emerged in the Arctic region post-1987 Mikhail Gorbachev’s Murmansk speech, has started thawing as is the sea-ice extent. According to climate scientists, the Arctic is warming at a rate four times the average normal. This emerging interplay of science and complex geopolitics makes the Arctic a high risk and vulnerable region. The ‘Science Diplomacy’ and ‘Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam’ as highlighted in India’s Arctic Policy (March 2022) could become an important guiding principle for this region.

Detailed Report

Dr. Sinha introduced the Arctic as a crisis and submitted two words in describing the region: antithesis and bellwether. The current securitisation in the Arctic is antithetical to the very foundation of Arctic as a zone of peace that Mikhail Gorbachev articulated in Murmansk in 1987. A series of policy initiations referred to as the Murmansk initiatives was launched such as nuclear weapons free zone in Northern Europe, restrictions in naval exercises in the Arctic Seas, development of transboundary cooperation on resource development, scientific exploration, indigenous people and environment protections. As a bellwether, the signs of what are happening in the Arctic region in terms of warming and its impact on the snow, ice and permafrost along with oceanographic and atmospheric changes are quite ominous for the global climate systems. Clearly what happens in the Arctic does not stay there. It also brings in a very noticeable conundrum. The more the Arctic becomes sea-ice free greater the economic and commercial attraction be it oil and gas and mineral resources extraction or the shipping lanes. Concluding his remarks, Dr. Sinha observed that a classic ‘security dilemma’ has emerged in the Arctic in which states take measures to improve security prompting other states to respond with their own security measures. What we are witnessing is a risky situation that can lead to unintended outcomes. The Arctic Council is going through a severely critical time. The interdisciplinary outlook that the Arctic Council has stood for is being tested by the interplay of the geopolitical and the geo-economics.

Mr. Bipandeep Sharma began by geographically defining the Arctic region. He then highlighted its salience from three broad perspectives: science, geo-economics and geopolitics. ‘Science’ is what makes the Arctic globally connected. Referring to the scientific argument made by India, the presenter stated the monsoon in India is directly connected with the melting of sea ice in the Arctic region. From a geo-economic context, the Arctic region accounts for abundant natural resources including oil and natural gas, as well as mineral wealth. The resource attraction has led the Arctic states to make territorial claims in the region beyond their allocated national jurisdictions.

Territorial claims as observed in the presentation are governed by the United Nations Laws of the Sea (UNCLOS). Briefly commenting on its provisions as well as the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS), Mr. Sharma said that a signatory state can make its claim in an area beyond 200 nautical miles of its designated Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) if it is successful in justifying (through scientific and technical data) before the CLCS that the area beyond its designated EEZ is an extension of its continental shelf. These claims before CLCS can be made only within 10 years of ratification of UNCLOS by a signatory state. The presentation also highlighted the importance of the new Arctic shipping routes that add to both the economic as well as strategic aspects of the region.

The presenter’s key argument was that the Arctic region is witnessing worrying militarisation. Like the chair, he also emphasized Gorbachev’s Murmansk speech and the call for making the Arctic a ‘Zone of Peace’. On the Arctic Council, the speaker noted that such institution building was part of the post-Cold War peace dividends which saw a period of de-securitisation. Despite geopolitical differences, the Arctic Council remained intact but now has been challenged by the Ukraine crisis and the expansion of NATO membership.

India’s position in the Arctic, as explained, is cautious and well calculated. India has maintained independent bilateral relations with Russia and with all the Nordic Countries. In conclusion, Mr. Sharma asserted the changing Arctic needs cooperation rather than conflict, and ‘Science Diplomacy’ could play an important role to bring back cooperation in the region. ‘Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam’ as mentioned in India’s Arctic Policy could become a guiding principle in the region in near future.

Discussion, Comments and Questions

After this comprehensive presentation, Dr. Sinha made his remarks and invited Ambassador Chinoy and Maj. Gen. (Dr.) Bipin Bakshi to make their comments. The floor was later opened to the panelists and participants for their questions and comments.

Ambassador Chinoy thanked the speaker and pointed out that there are three major planks on which the geo-politics of Arctic revolves: climate change, geo-economics and geo-strategic. These factors shall have a major impact on India’s growing engagement in the Arctic. He also commented on the major power contestation between the USA and China. Furthermore, he gave his insights on the Antarctic Treaty and the Sea Lines of Communications (SLOCs). He also commented on broad challenges like the militarisation of the Arctic region.

Maj. Gen. (Dr.) Bipin Bakshi, (Retd.), thanked the speaker and commented on building institutional cooperation between think-tanks and academia on Arctic related issues. He highlighted that in this MP-IDSA can play a pioneer role.

Dr. Anand Kumar, Associate Fellow, South Asia, MP-IDSA, commented on the concerns of climate change and exploitation of resources in the Arctic region.

Dr. Adil Rasheed, Research Fellow, Counter Terrorism Centre, MP-IDSA, brought up the concerns of climate change and its effects on how Russia views the Arctic region. He also made remarks about China and Russia’s cooperation and their approach to Arctic geopolitics.

Richa Kumaria, Research Intern, Non-Traditional Security Centre, MP-IDSA, raised a question on the role of the China in the Arctic region.

Dr. Sinha and Mr. Bipandeep Sharma gave a detailed explanation to the comments and questions raised by the participants.

Report prepared by Mr. Pintu Kumar Mahla, Research Intern, Non-Traditional Security Centre, MP-IDSA, New Delhi.