Ice free Arctic: cooperation or competition?

By Alex Gratzek – Originally published in The Korea Times

In early May, U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo attended the Arctic Council’s working dinner in Finland where he spoke on issues concerning the Arctic. The melting of the frozen Arctic Ocean means the creation of new trade routes and raises the possibility of great power competition in the area.

The melting arctic a scenario, I would like to see avoided, but the Trump administration’s refusal towards implementing and attempting to reach the goals set out in the Paris Agreement makes global warming and the melting of Arctic Ice seemingly inevitable. It is expected that by the 2020s, the Arctic will be open to viable commercial navigation.

The ice coverage in the Arctic has been shrinking at an increasing rate as water and air temperatures in the region have risen. With this, the age old dream of realizing a Northern passage, either a Northeast or Northwest one will soon arise. Such options would cut down on the current transit times from Asia to Europe and the East Coast of the Americas.

Despite being a shorter trade route, the route would still be treacherous as many waterways covered in ice would only have become recently navigable. There is a dearth of knowledge concerning seafloor depths, shoals and rocks which pose a threat to merchant vessels.

Furthermore, the weather in the Arctic is less than ideal posing the traditional threat of stormy weather to ships. Lastly, there is a complete lack of the necessary infrastructure on the Canadian and America side of the passage to extend aid to vessels in trouble or deal with other situations.

As the ice cover shrinks, the issue facing the world is how to address what will be a new reality. It is important to address the issue in a manner of cooperation rather than competition, namely between Canada and the U.S., and Russia. So many things could go wrong in the new environment and it would be a travesty if a lack of cooperation lea to a disaster in the region.

The Arctic is a fragile ecosystem where many things could go wrong. In 2010, the Deepwater Horizon in the Gulf of Mexico spilt oil for nearly 87 days. That was in an area which was easily accessible with lots of infrastructure nearby. Just imagine how long oil would remain spilling in the Arctic if such a catastrophe occured.

Also, as the world’s population grows, so does the desire for protein. Overfishing has plagued the rest of the world’s oceans, leaving them increasingly empty. Without regulation and monitoring of fish levels, Arctic fisheries would face the overfishing which is emptying the rest of the world’s oceans.

In such a situation, it is important that standards and efforts at cooperation take precedence over competition. South Korea and Japan are two prime candidates to push for international cooperation in the region in the face of nations bordering the Arctic who are keen on maximizing their territorial claims and the accompanying economic bounty.

South Korea and Japan have both attempted to get involved in the game concerning resources in the Arctic but these interests are limited by the geographic reality that both are not located in the region. In the face of such circumstances, it makes sense for the two to combine their efforts.

Each nation has a vested interest in seeing passages in the Arctic open to all, and should work in conjunction with each other towards this end. Both nations stand to benefit from the reduced sailing time as each nation’s economic prosperity is dependent upon the smooth flowing of finished goods and resources.

Also, each nation is a major shipbuilding nation. It is important to construct vessels designed for traversing the Arctic with better safety features, and to higher standards than vessels built for non-Arctic purposes. Japan and Korea should lead together to create such standards.

A successful push giving all involved parties a seat at the table to establish norms for the new environment in a cooperative fashion is ideal. There is a precedence for such a scenario.

A Treaty Governing Antarctica has been in effect since 1961 while the International Space Station is another example of joint cooperation. Such a dream for the Arctic is feasible but is governed by a more complex situation, namely the location of multiple powers in the area.

Despite such obstacles and the history of distrust between the two nations, neither should force Korea or Japan to give up. Rather, their successful mediation of quarrels in the Arctic region could serve as a template for the resolution of disputes in the South China Sea or other areas of contention in the world.

Japan and Korea may not get along, but this is an area in which their respective diplomatic clout should be joined together rather than in pursuit of their individual interests which will ultimately be overshadowed by those of China, Canada, Russia and the United States.

At the opposite end of the ocean, the European Union should also be approached to increase diplomatic pressure in an effort to push for the internationalization of the Arctic. Rules, norms and expectations should be agreed upon and implemented before the ice melts to prevent a wild free for all to exploit the region’s resources and potential disaster. Such a free for all could be devastating to the region.