From Regional Transition to Global Change
26
Further, as it has been discussed (e.g. Heininen, forth-coming), two well-defined discourses on
Arctic geopolitics have emerged and shaped the ensuing discussion on the region in the 2010s. First,
the geopolitical discourse, on the one hand, reflects the degree of stability and peacefulness enjoyed
in the region as a result of the institutionalized international Arctic cooperation (in the post-Cold
War era) and, on the other hand, describes the region as a space legally and politically divided
between eight Arctic states by mutually recognized national borders with only a few outstanding
(and managed) territorial disputes. This state of affairs has been challenged by another, and more
explicitly realist, geopolitical discourse arguing that there is a ‗race‘ for natural resources as well as
emerging regional conflicts driven by the importance of state sovereignty. According to the latter
discourse, state sovereignty is seen to be threatened by climate change, as well as increased interest
from outside the region, by non-Arctic states from Asian and Europe, also the European Union, and
their security and economic interests.
Northern (In)Security
Indeed, several kinds of relevant regional and global issues and problems do exist in the Arctic and
influence geopolitics and Northern security issues. Some of the most relevant issues are the long-
range air and water pollutants (such as toxins, heavy metals, radioactivity); climate change with its
physical and socio-economic impacts; and problems referring to the mass-scale utilization of energy
resources (i.e. extractive industries), and their transportation through new sea routes. All these
concerns exercise cumulative impacts on societies, environment and economy, regionally and locally,
causing significant and complex changes in the region. Energy security, for example, has appeared in
newly contemporary forms and become increasingly important, strategically, within the Arctic states,
such as Norway, Russia and Greenland, as a part of exercising and controlling their sovereignty.
Correspondingly and at another scale, it has become a part of the larger issue of global security, for
instance for China and the European Union, attracted, first, by potentially rich Arctic off-shore
hydrocarbon deposits (particularly oil) and, second, an increased access to energy resources due to
climate change and thawing sea-ice. Finally, reinforcing the last point, it is the potential of northern
sea routes and shipping, particularly new trans-arctic routes, and geo-economics. Although, this
growing international interest does not necessarily mean emerging (armed) conflicts in the Arctic, it
is also
seen and interpreted
as a potential threat (perceptions) and risk (calculations) causing
uncertainties, where emerging conflicts regarding the environment and natural resources are now
part of the security/insecurity equation.
Furthermore, there are two other perspectives that deserve our attention. They both deal with
globalization and enable us to approach Arctic geopolitics and Northern security that go beyond the
traditional terms of power, conflict and cooperation. The first one is fixated with new and significant
changes, which might be called the Arctic ‗boom‘ or ‗paradox‘ perspective (Palosaari, 2012) with
indicators, such as rapid climate change, an increase of the utilization of natural resources, new
options for energy security and new sea routes. These significant changes have also greatly impacted
the traditional Arctic security architecture by expanding the security perspective from traditional and
narrow military-oriented to comprehensive, more human-oriented one. The second perspective is
focused on the growing global attention toward the Arctic region, and that correspondingly, the