NPSIA student, Stefanie Fisher examines how vulnerable Canada’s Arctic is to “malicious threats”.
In recent years it has become a common assumption that the Arctic region is vulnerable to threats from terrorists, piracy, human trafficking, and foreign states (among other modern external threats). The rhetoric produced by the Canadian government in the past in reference to the Arctic was primarily concerned with maintaining Canadian sovereignty and security in the region. This has created the perception that the Canadian Arctic is particularly susceptible to external security threats, thereby necessitating a strong military presence and sophisticated technology in order to monitor for incoming missiles and/or drones etc. This thinking is exacerbated by several Canadian scholars who frame the Arctic as a region whose security is not taken seriously. However, this grim picture is misleading. The realities of the Arctic are different from the perceptions that have been created. The alarmist rhetoric is only hindering the real progress that has been made by the Arctic states. Therefore, it is important that the Canadian government’s focus shifts to the cooperation evident among the Arctic states.
Why are we vulnerable? A look at why security has been framed as a pressing issue for the Arctic
The Arctic has long been framed as vulnerable and in need of protecting. This mindset began, in part, due to fears during the Cold War of a Russian attack through the Arctic. More recently, the concern has been with melting sea ice, allowing for greater mobility in Arctic waters and creating “complex security challenges” ranging from natural disasters and climate change complications to organized crime and espionage. What is more, there seems to be a new sense of urgency among governments to heighten security as interest in the region by a variety of actors is becoming greater. In conjunction with these threats, the fear of Russian invasion continues to persist. This is partially due to recent activity in Crimea, and their use of military force to solve political issues—however, cooperation is more descriptive of Russia’s activity in the Arctic specifically.
There continues to be several vague assumptions as to why the Canadian Arctic is vulnerable, with a limited understanding of whether these fears will be realized. The recommendations put forth by some scholars is a strong presence in our Arctic in the form of greater Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) and NORAD presence. But are the concerns facing the Arctic conventional military threats? Or are they of a different sort requiring a different response?
The realities of the Arctic security environment
While the Arctic is described by some governments and scholars as a region that is in need of renewed security attention due to the likelihood of malicious actors using the Arctic as a gateway to attack North America, this remains conjecture given the level of collaboration among the various Arctic actors. The narratives that depict Russia as a likely enemy in the Arctic is not consistent with their actual behaviour in the Arctic. Russia has maintained its commitments under UNCLOS which outlines the rules governing oceans including the Arctic Ocean.. Additionally, Russia has an interest in upholding international law in the Arctic as their GDP is dependent on it being a zone of economic prosperity that requires rules and norms. It is highly unlikely that Russia would cut off the diplomatic ties it has created in the Arctic, as they have spent decades fostering and maintaining these relationships.
Canada and the US have a strong defence relationship, capable of detecting not only air-born threats emanating from Russia, but also from potential terrorists . Further, despite the melting ice, the Arctic, especially Canada’s Arctic, is still a difficult maritime environment in which to navigate making it unlikely to see heavy commercial traffic from international vessels in the near future. Attention needs to shift from the potential of attacks from away to the ongoing and daily environmental and security concerns that come with a melting Arctic.
The Arctic’s actual and more immediate security priorities are dealing with climate change, complicated search and rescue scenarios that could involve the relocation of whole Arctic hamlets, and the daily food and employment challenges faced by Northerners. These concerns are more in line with the mandate of the Arctic Council which is concerned with protecting the environment and promoting sustainable development that includes protection of indigenous culture, and encouraging search and rescue coordination. The Arctic Council is of particular importance, as it has, since its inception, made the Arctic a place of cooperation and diplomacy. This intergovernmental forum sees states like Russia and the US working together in order to ensure best practices in the Arctic. And, while the Arctic states do have legitimate geopolitical disagreements (read the Middle East), it is clear that the way in which they conduct themselves when it comes to the Arctic is something to be encouraged rather than vilified.
A different outlook for the Arctic
The level of international cooperation in the Arctic is unprecedented. And, while ensuring that the Arctic is secure from external threats is important, there should be a far greater focus on organizations, such as the Arctic Council, that encourage collaboration especially with indigenous organizations and environmental groups, in order to protect the Arctic region. There is no question that the Arctic will face a host of new issues as the effects of climate change begin to become further apparent, and as the international community becomes more engaged and interested in Arctic navigation and resources.