The Arctic Ownership Debate

Environmental concerns have long since been an influential matter included in international politics. Unfortunately, ownership and exploitation of natural resources is often the agenda of environmental political discussion. A clear example of these political discussions is the recent debate regarding the Arctic. This is not a discussion to reduce ice cap melting which would, along with many other beneficial effects, save many native people, ensure proper ocean currents, and prevent water level increases. Nor is this international conversation in an effort to aid species included on the endangered species list to protect their future in the Arctic. Rather this discussion focuses on the value of the Arctic’s natural resources and the income that these resources may produce upon our endless overuse of them.

In 2007 a miniature submarine from Russia planted a Russian flag on the seabed beneath the North Pole. This act caused uproar among the developed countries surrounding the Arctic. Canada, Russia, the United States, Norway and Denmark-Greenland began an ongoing dispute over ownership of the Arctic and its resources. In an effort to claim the largest amount of the Arctic’s resources as possible, tireless research and mapping was carried out by these countries. While these countries strive to spend as little as possible to maintain environmental conditions even within their own country, they are all more than willing to spend millions of dollars in an effort to claim these valuable, nonrenewable resources.

The exploration of the Arctic would not be a cheap endeavor since navigation in the Arctic is no easy feat. Both the ocean and terrain conditions are less than favorable for any journeying or research attempt. Specialized vessels and equipment are necessary to allow for safe navigation under such conditions. In addition to costly navigation equipment, the mapping that was essential to make any claim on part of the Arctic also required specialized equipment with a heavy price tag. And so the expense rose. However, whereas cost would impede any positive environmental action, it was no deterrent to the effort to acquire land for exploitation purposes.

The willingness of these countries to undertake such an expensive exploration that will eventually lead to the diminishment of even more natural resources is, in itself, a troubling proposition. However, the political aspect of these countries’ actions is equally unsettling.

The Arctic Council is the region’s most important high-level forum; however, it has been almost completely left out of the dialogue. The council is composed of eight Arctic states, five other indigenous groups and participation from the Inuit Circumpolar Council. This group will be directly impacted by the outcome of the Arctic dispute, yet they lack the ability to make laws or regulations to protect their land.

The Arctic is sought after simply for its oil and mineral wealth. The goal of the countries involved in the dispute is to exploit the land for its valuable contents while completely disregarding the indigenous people, native wildlife and the environment that support them both. There are already many environmental concerns in the arctic. The most important and far reaching of which is increasing global temperature. The increasing global temperature is causing rapid melting of the ice which is also putting many indigenous groups in danger as well as many species at high risk of extinction.

Many of the unseen actions of these countries may seem backwards. It may seem backwards that these countries claim to be respectful to and caretakers of the environment while they are spending more in efforts to exploit it rather than protect it. And it may seem backwards for the Arctic Council to have little to no influence in deciding what happens with their land. However, these actions are unfortunately occurring more commonly than most citizens realize. It is not uncommon for well-developed countries to take advantage of less developed countries in an effort to acquire something they desire. Although the Arctic is uninhabited for the most part, this behavior has been seen on numerous occasions in developing countries. Any natural resource that is found in third world countries and is desired by well-developed countries will be taken regardless of the cost to get it or the negative impact their actions may have on native humans, animals, and environment.

Arctic Debate Summary BBC News


Click HERE to open the feedback tool.