The Arctic and World Order. Группа авторов

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ Canada and the United States tried to manage what they acknowledged was a significant disagreement over this waterways’ status. Despite their stark “difference and disappointment,” to quote President John F. Kennedy, Canada and the United States have been enjoying a long history of respectful collaboration in the Arctic. This pragmatic approach—agreeing to disagree and getting on with the business of resolving issues of mutual interest and concern—is arguably more important than ever as the Arctic region bears the brunt of climate change. Lalonde explores two major developments linked to climate change with a profound impact on the NWP debate: increased access to and foreign interest in Canada’s Arctic waters and the strengthened voice of Canada’s Indigenous Peoples.

      Nengye Liu applies a theoretical framework regarding power, order and international law to the Arctic, arguing that this explains the root of Western anxieties regarding China’s rise in the Arctic. The chapter also discusses driving forces of the current development of international law in the Arctic. To imagine a desirable future for the Arctic, it suggests that China should adopt an Arctic Policy 2.0 with concrete plan to strike a delicate balance between economic development and environmental protection.

      Lassi Heininen looks at prospects for Arctic relations through the prism of the COVID-19 pandemic shock. He cautions that some leaders could use the pandemic as an excuse to turn to authoritarian solutions to their respective health, political and economic problems, and to offer those solutions as models for others to emulate. He argues that this would be a disaster for the region, which has moved successfully from military tension to high geopolitical stability, even as it faces rapid environmental degradation and climate change. By going beyond the “hegemony game” the Arctic states can work to achieve their aim of maintaining “peace, stability and constructive cooperation.” He suggests that if the Arctic stakeholders can follow through on their commitments to climate change mitigation and global environmental security, rely on scientific recommendations, and apply high ethical principles to resilient solutions to resource utilization, the global Arctic will offer lessons to learn.

      Picking up on this theme, P. Whitney Lackenbauer and Ryan Dean recount how scholars have developed and mobilized various formulations of “Arctic exceptionalism,” suggesting that either different norms or rules are or should be followed in the circumpolar north to build and promote a peaceable regime, or that the region is exempt from “normal” drivers of international affairs. They broaden this aperture by examining and parsing contemporary articulations of this regional concept. Some critics argue that conventional concepts of Arctic exceptionalism perpetuate naïve, utopian faith in regional cooperation that cannot override global strategic competition, while simultaneously advancing arguments that Arctic states must undertake extraordinary responses to protect their sovereignty and provide security in the Arctic because the region is exceptionally vulnerable. While Arctic exceptionalism was originally used to advance the cause of peace across the region, Lackenbauer and Dean illustrate how Arctic exceptionalist logic is also used to support narratives that portend conflict and thus call for extraordinary action to defend the Arctic as a region apart. Rather than taking the dominant definition and employment of “Arctic exceptionalism” as the (singular) “proper” articulation of the concept, they point to several “Arctic exceptionalisms” at play in recent debates about the so-called Arctic regime and its place in the broader world order.

      Andreas Østhagen seeks to bring clarity to the confusing multitude of actors and layers of engagement in Arctic (geo)politics. He unpacks the notion of Arctic “geopolitics” by teasing out the different, at times contradictory, dynamics at play in the North along three “levels” of inter-state relations: the international system, the regional (Arctic) level, and bilateral relations. By labelling these three levels as “good,” “bad,” and “ugly,” he showcases how the idea of conflict in the Arctic persists, and why this does not necessarily counter the reality of regional cooperation and stability.

      As this book shows, one of the emerging questions of security in the Arctic has been how to address the growing strategic concerns of non-Arctic states. Despite the established view among Arctic governments that local security rests primarily within their purview, some non-Arctic states are now pressing to be included in current and future Arctic security dialogue, especially as the region opens up to greater economic activity. Among the factors driving this phenomenon are concerns from non-Arctic states about spillover of Arctic threats into their milieus, the desire to obtain ‘club goods’ in the form of accepted legitimacy as Arctic stakeholders, and the need to be heard in future areas of Arctic governance. One non-Arctic state, China, is widely seen as ‘forcing’ the debate about the role of non-Arctic governments in the circumpolar north, but other states outside of the region are also presenting their own views on Arctic security and potential threats, while at the same time seeking status as participants in Arctic security discourses. Marc Lanteigne argues that there is now a need for Arctic states to better address the security concerns of non-Arctic actors as the region continues to become internationalized in environmental, economic and military security.

       The Slow-Moving Pandemic and the Future of the Arctic

      As of this writing, we are in the midst of a global health crisis that has shaken the whole of humanity, caused a tragic number of deaths, and led to economic hardship and social upheaval not seen in many generations. Its effects are rippling across the globe. Yet global warming has not stopped because of COVID-19. In fact, climate change could be considered as a slower-moving pandemic, with differing yet equally or even more disastrous effects: cascading natural disasters, freakish weather events, and loss of wildlife and habitats, all generating climate refugees and mass migratory movements likely to shake polities and provoke conflict.

      In many ways, the Arctic is humanity’s canary in the coal mine—an early warning sign of the extremes this slow-moving pandemic can cause, the place where the implications of the recent UN declaration of a planetary “climate emergency” are most palpable.⁸⁸ Partly for these reasons, the Arctic has also become a focal point for intensifying geostrategic tensions, a space where political and economic interests collide with ecological and cultural sensitivities.

      Insofar as the Arctic Eight and regional Indigenous people have continued to cooperate in the Arctic Council and have acted within the wider international regime based on universal norms and principles, the Arctic remains an exceptional region—one that has sought to insulate itself from global powerplays and tensions. At the same time, it is an arena where all powers are watching their backs: each is seeking to shore up its Arctic status and its stakes in a region where mineral riches and maritime passages await to be exploited politically, militarily and legally. The rhetoric of nationalism and conflict threatens to squeeze Indigenous voices and the language of peace and collaboration.

      With global environmental and political change entwined, we are thus confronted with a double-edged reality, a paradox of enticing opportunities and incalculable riches that might be exploited for short-term gain, and of appalling long-term dangers that irreversible natural destruction may bring. As we glimpse the future of the Anthropocene—the horizon of 2040—complex questions abound, pertaining to peace and war, life and death.

      It remains to be seen how far the Arctic regime can adapt to new expressions of nationalism, whether resource extraction can really proceed in a sustainable manner, and whether the Arctic as a zone of peace and collaboration can survive the changing global political dynamics that encroach on it. The essays in this volume offer important perspectives on the issues at stake and the processes under way.

       Notes

      1 1. Cited in “Sheila Watt-Clothier, Honorary Doctorate,” 2006, University of Winnipeg, https://www.uwinnipeg.ca/awards-distinctions/honorary-doctorate/cloutier.html.

      2 2. See Kristina Spohr, “The Race to Conquer the Arctic—The World’s Final СКАЧАТЬ