Snow Dragon: Arctic Geopolitics & the Belt and Road Initiative
Climate change has geopolitical consequences, and one of these relates to the melting of the Arctic ice (cf. aside from migration, food security, and environmental issues). And, those promising geostrategic opportunities are not only for countries bordering the region but also for the ones whose economies are very much so dependent on global trade.
The dispute in the Arctic is not just about the rich mineral seabed, but also about the navigation rights through the Arctic, and more specifically about the question of sovereignty concerning the Northwest Passage (claimed as national waters by Canada) and the Northeast Passage (crossing areas claimed by Russia as internal waters). In essence, it boils down to who controls shipping along both passages. Anecdotally, as a side-remark, contrary to common belief, the opposition does not erupt from the recent melting of the Arctic ice (cf. the actual dissension about the status of the waters in the Canadian archipelago between the US and Canada coalesced during the 1960s).
Such arctic routes would be shorter between the Atlantic and the Pacific, and challenge existing Suez and Panama routes. In other words, global warming will result into the opening of much shorter sea routes linking Europe via the northern shores of the North American coast to Asia, as well as increased access to the mineral riches of the region.
Apparently, it is a public secret that the (Western) media attention (i.e., The Economist, CNN, BBC, etc.) is mostly focused on the "same-old-same-old" geopolitical (Arctic) rivalry between the West and Russia. This old boring record has been played for so many decades now that one might wonder why the media barely talks about the tree that hides the forest, namely the other major stakeholder in the region - China, the Snow Dragon.
Which shipping routes would cross the Arctic ocean?
Source: Wikipedia
The prospect of growing maritime traffic in Arctic waters (particularly the Northwest Passage in the Canadian Arctic archipelago, or the Northeast Passage north of Russia) has fed the rhetoric about these Arctic routes and controversy over the speed of such naval growth. Similarly, much rhetoric has been voiced regarding the extent of continental shelves in the Arctic. And, then there is the Transpolar Sea Route (TSR), which is also a future Arctic shipping route. And this one will be running from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean across the center of the Arctic Ocean. The course is also sometimes called Trans-Arctic Route.
The potential opening up of these three shipping routes across the Canadian archipelago (NWP), north of Siberia (NEP), or right through the arctic waters (TPR), is raising vital security concerns as it involves a potential surge in the navigation of all sorts of ships. Analysts from Laval University are speculating about inherent challenges to the environment, should an oil tanker run aground or sink. There are also issues as it relates to military security, should terrorists try to infiltrate North America through the back door of a sparsely populated and poorly monitored area. And, then there are challenges regarding human safety, should a passenger ship hit a growler (an iceberg) and sink (i.e., as happened to the MS Explorer in Antarctica in November 2007). The question of sovereignty about the Northwest Passage (claimed as internal waters by Canada) and the Northeast Passage (crossing areas claimed by Russia as internal waters) boils down to who controls shipping along both passages (Source: Canada Library of Parliament).
How is the Arctic governed?
The Arctic is shared between the United States, Canada, Finland, Greenland (Denmark), Iceland, Norway, Russia, and Sweden. The area is under the administration of the Arctic Council. Non-member countries include nations that have no littoral interests with the Arctic area, such as for example - and, surprisingly - Singapore and the People's Republic of China.
The Arctic Council was founded in 1991, and now is a high-level intergovernmental forum which addresses issues faced by the Arctic governments and the indigenous peoples of the Arctic. The UNCLOS (The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea) is also a stakeholder in the governance of the Arctic as it is the referee on the continental shelf issues that determine for the coastal states the EEZ (Exclusive Economic Zone - 200 nm from baseline). And, while Canada, the United States, Russia, Norway, Denmark are the most significant contenders disputing the sovereignty of the areas through which the shipping routes will pass, China is equally a geopolitical contender in the game. Indeed, an aspect of the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) that is less well known, and about which we still have few details, is indeed the Arctic Route.
China maritime Silk Road & the Arctic
In other words, China is the perfect illustration of a country which has an interest in the region while not being a circumpolar state. China, which has no legal basis to articulate claims over sea zones in the area, has nonetheless been increasingly present on the diplomatic, scientific and economic scenes. Discussions over potential natural resource reserves in the area and the opening of new trade routes have led to speculation over China's intentions, with its economy increasingly bound by energy security issues (Source: China Policy Institute).
China is colloquially labeled as being very interested in both Arctic mineral resources and the opening of Arctic shipping route (cf. Chinese scholars even claim that China is a near-Arctic country). And, the Chinese maritime Silk Road (aka BRI) through the Arctic will definitely serve the Middle Kingdom economy by diversifying its trade routes. As such, Beijing has every desire in the future of transporting its products via the Arctic from China to the European mainland, thereby reducing the distances involved by up 20-30%. This will save time, fuel and human resources in the process. Considering that 90% of Chinese products are transported by sea, even a small change would generate huge savings and more significant profits. And, bearing in mind these elements, China does not intent to waste any time.
Beijing's geostrategic policy on the Arctic
China’s targets in the Arctic will complement the One Belt, One Road Strategy (OBOR). Geographically, the Indian Ocean and the Arctic Ocean are the southern and northern flanks of the Eurasian mainland. Investments in infrastructure and shipping routes along the Northern Sea Route and the Maritime Silk Road can enhance China’s Silk Road Economic Belt strategy. Subsequently, the Middle Kingdom can add three naval frontiers to Mackinder’s “heartland” on the Eurasian mainland. And, China can also overcome some of the issues in controlling the heartland envisioned in the past. This could provide Beijing with a beneficial geopolitical position and an opportunity to “command the world islands” – Europe, Asia, and Africa – in the 21st century. Still, it remains to be seen if Beijing can successfully implement the OBOR strategy and whether its investments in the Arctic region can complement this approach.
How do Moscow's security interests compare with Beijing's ones?
From an energy security perspective, Russia is a major petroleum producer while China is a significant petroleum consumer, and thus they are not competing on the same terms. One is looking at the Arctic in terms of the export route and the other one as it relates to the import passage. And, Sino-Russian energy cooperation is substantial in the Arctic as Beijing. Its national oil companies (NOCs) are now one of the few governments willing to make significant investments in this high cost producing region. China’s energy companies are indeed looking for experience in international project management, and thus are aiming to move forward their technological skills. The Chinese government is seeking to enhance China’s energy security by means of a hedging strategy that diversifies through investments in more costly petroleum sources and transportation routes.
The immediate future till 2022
The current challenges in the circumpolar Arctic region (Source: The Diplomat Magazine) are not yet (for now) at a boiling point to justify a military confrontation between the U.S. and China. Indeed, for now, cooperation predominantly guides their policies and activities. While the U.S. and China play opposing roles and increasingly want to show their power, they have interests that are common to both countries, such as in the freedom of the seas in the extraction of resources and in developing new infrastructure in the region. Anecdotally, you will note that China is less inclined to play that card of freedom of the waters as it relates to the South and East China Seas (sic),
In a nutshell, and for now, there is not much information that suggests the Arctic area will be a crucial point of military confrontation in broader U.S.-China relations, although it is a public secret that in the coming decades it will most likely become a major point of contention between both countries.