atlantic voices - climate security

ATLANTIC TREATY ASSOCIATION

Atlantic Voices, Volume 6, Issue 02 1

- Flora Pidoux

It is difficult today to refute that climate change is in progress. When the effects used to be restricted to the already resource scarce and isolated regions of the world, the entire planet is now being affected by global warming one way or another as more extreme whether conditions have erupted, threatening infrastructures, human lives and state security.

Climate degradation poses a threat for the reason that it is hard to control and cannot be reversed. It can, however, be slowed down by reducing our greenhouse gas emissions. The Paris Agreement reached at the end of COP21 which took place in Paris at the end of 2015, aimed at just that: set limits so that we do not further jeopardize our planet.

Although not perceived as a direct security threat, global warming triggers phenomena which do. Migrations and conflicts are now more prone to arise due to resource scarcity.

This issue explores how NATO has been indirectly affected by climate change, notably through natural disasters within its borders and migration, and what measures the Alliance has put in place as a reaction. The geopolitical implications of the melting of the ice cap will also be addressed.

Climate Security Volume 6 - Issue 02 February 2016

Contents: Climate Change and NATO: Integration and Adaptation

Ms. Candice Geinoz analyzes how climate change is perceived by NATO,

how the phenomenon has indirectly impacted the security of the Alliance, and

which measures have been put in place by the organization to protect itself

from the effects of climate degradation.

What Happens to the Arctic Does Not Stay in the Arctic…

And Vice Versa Mr. Andrea Bogi focuses on how the economic prospects liberated by the

melting of the ice cap and cooperation in the High North have been affected by

the deterioration of NATO-Russia relations.

Map showing the increase of temperatures in 2014 compared to 1884. (Image: NASA Scientific Visualization Studio)


By Candice Geinoz

A military organization by definition,

NATO has , over the years ,

progressively widened its scope of

action to encompass concerns that are not military in

nature, but whose impacts are nonetheless crucial for

the Alliance’s security. Issues such as humanitarian

relief and hybrid warfare, among others, which stand

outside of NATO’s original goals, have gradually been

incorporated into NATO’s agenda while still

remaining secondary to defense concerns.

In its 2010 Strategic Concept, NATO integrated

the notion that climate change has the potential to

influence the Alliance’s security, by recognizing that

“key environmental and resource constraints,

including health risks, climate change, water scarcity

and increasing energy needs will further shape the

future security environment in areas of concern to

NATO, and have the potential to significantly affect

NATO planning and operations”. This integration,

especially by a military organization, represents an

important turning point in the gradual

acknowledgement of climate change and its impacts.

However, its implementation remained relatively

limited.

In the past few years, the call for action and

cooperation to tackle climate change got stronger, as

the impacts of environmental degradation started to be

felt in the Western Hemisphere. More extreme

weather events, such as hurricanes and earthquakes,

have been occurring more and more often in the Euro-

Atlantic region. In addition, the United Nations

Framework Convention on Climate Change’ Conference

of Parties (COP21), which took place in Paris at the end

of 2015, gave climate change a strong momentum as

states began to comprehend and recognize the urgency of

the problem and the need to take this threatening

phenomenon into account when defining their national

security strategies.

NATO’s Position on Climate Change

NATO recognized the natural environment challenges

facing the international community in 1969 when it

created the Committee on the Challenges of Modern

Society (CCMS), a scientific body whose aim was to

study the environmental problems faced by developed

nations. In 2006, this body merged with the Science for

Peace and Security Program, to become NATO Science

for Peace and Security Division (NATO SPS Division)

and environmental issues found themselves mixed with

other questions such as science, cyber defence, energy

security and human and social aspects of security.

Today, environmental security has found its way into

the SPS’s key priorities, and entail the following three

focuses:

i. Security issues arising from key environmental and

resource constraints, including health risks, climate

change, water scarcity and increasing energy needs,

which have the potential to significantly affect NATO's

planning and operations;

ii. Disaster forecast and prevention of natural

catastrophes;

iii. Defence-related environmental issues.

Climate Change and NATO: Integration and Adaptation


Following the integration of climate change into its

2010 Strategic Concept, NATO joined the Environment

and Security Initiative (ENVSEC), a partnership

composed of different international agencies (the United

Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the United

Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the

Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe

(OSCE), the United Nations Economic Commission for

Europe (UNECE), and the Regional Environment

Centre for Central and Eastern Europe (REC)), providing

a combined pool of expertise and resources to comprehend

and address environmental problems that threaten security.

The Alliance contributes to the initiative through capacity

building and raising awareness. For example, NATO funded

programs in Eastern Europe and Central Asia to reduce

tensions and conflict related to environmental security issues

arising from uranium extraction in Central Asia.

The Alliance reiterated its will to take into account

climate-induced security challenges into its strategy on

numerous occasions. At NATO’s 2012 Chicago Summit,

the Alliance declared, through official publications, that

climate change will shape the future security

environment and therefore affect NATO’s planning and

operations, a declaration that was made again during

NATO’s Wales Summit in 2014. The implementation

into real actions of this acknowledgement remains,

however, limited, which pushed, Bulgaria’s Deputy

Defence Minister to urge the alliance members to adopt

a common approach to address the impacts of climate

change in December 2013, stating that common actions

needed to be undertaken. The recognition of climate

change as a factor that will shape the Alliance’s security

environment is a first step, but NATO’s actions until

now have aimed at adapting to climate change, while

forgetting to address the source of the problem, meaning

greenhouse gas emissions.

In a pre-COP21 context, NATO Parliamentary

Assembly, a consultative body formed by

parliamentarians from the Euro-Atlantic, adopted for

the first time a resolution that recognized climate

change as “a significant threat multiplier that will shape

the security environment in areas of concern to the

Alliance”. The resolution’s aims were to urge Alliance

members to take real commitments during the Paris

Conference in order to reduce the effects of climate

change.

Two elements explain the limited response from the

transatlantic community. First, the Euro-Atlantic has, in

general, been spared from the adverse consequences of

climate change, as temperate regions have been less

vulnerable to the associated risks of climate degradation.

Second, traditional military threats such as Russia’s

aggression in eastern Ukraine or the fight against Daesh

still have NATO’s full attention as they are much more

palpable and directly impact the security of the Alliance.

Climate-Induced Security Challenges

The impacts of climate change are diverse and vary

greatly between countries, depending on their location

as well as on their infrastructures. Some areas are much

more vulnerable and prone to disasters – arid and

coastal zones being the most risk prone. According to

the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

(IPCC), an intergovernmental scientific body

established by the United Nations in 1988, if the current

trend of greenhouse gas emissions continues, global

temperatures will keep increasing. A rise in

temperatures will lead to various consequences, ranging

from more extreme weather patterns to the rise of sea

levels. It will in turn cause floods, more frequent

natural disasters, competition over resources, land

degradation, migrations, and so on.


Migrations and Conflict

Already in the 1990s, the IPCC estimated that the

greatest possible impact of global warming would be

migrations, as resource scarcity would force populations

to move, hoping to find better living conditions

elsewhere. The displacement of populations due to

environmental degradation can have several impacts. A

changing climate will increase resource scarcity,

especially water and food shortage, as arid zones will

become even more arid. In those regions, an increase in

the population due to environmental migrations will only

exacerbate competition over said resources, which might

in turn lead to violent

conflict.

Contrary to a

widespread belief,

climate change and

e n v i r o n m e n t a l

degradation do not

d i r e c t l y c r e a t e

c o n f l i c t s , b u t

c o n t r i b u t e t o

exacerbate existing

tensions or natural

resource scarcities.

Climate change must

therefore be perceived as a force multiplier, meaning a

factor that increases the scale and seriousness of conflicts.

Moreover, climate change has the potential to make

already fragile states fail by acting as an accelerant of

instability, as poverty and increased tensions will put

pressure on the government to adequately meet the basic

needs of its population. In addition, the impacts of climate

change will have disproportionate effects on poor

countries with weak governance. From 2006 to 2011,

Syria suffered from extreme drought, which led to

increased poverty and the number of migrants moving

towards urban areas is estimated to be of two million.

Combined with mismanagement by the Assad regime, this

relocation has contributed to social tensions that have

precipitated the civil war and migration waves to Europe.

NATO’s response and actions regarding migrations

have remained limited, for the reason that climate-

induced migration is limited and poorly framed by

international law and regulations. Although the Alliance

acknowledges that migration can be a potential

consequence of climate change, NATO’s response on the

matter of population displacement has remained marginal

and focused on

protecting the

Alliance’s borders.

It is only in

February 2016 that

NATO Defense

Ministers agreed to

assist with the

refugee crisis, by

c o n d u c t i n g

reconnaissance and

monitoring illegal

crossings in the

Aegean in an effort

to counter human trafficking and criminal networks. It

must be stressed that the Alliance has always perceived

migrations and refugees through a socio-economic lens,

preferring to focus on human trafficking, and believing

that migrant issues were prerogatives of the European

Union and not of its direct concern. As climate change

will increase the scale and intensity of migrations, one can

easily imagine that climate-induced migrations are going

to be extremely challenging for the Alliance.

NATO Geo experts have created a map that predicts likely flooding areas in Afghanistan

(Photo: NATO)


Natural disasters

Another serious consequence emanating from

climate change is the increase in scale, occurrence and

intensity of natural disasters. Although the majority of

NATO countries are not located in disaster-prone

regions, some areas are growing more risk-prone. For

instance, the Balkans were heavily hit by floods in 2010

and 2014, resulting in more than 12,000 people being

forced to move from their homes in the North and

Northwest regions of Albania. In 2015, the USA

suffered from severe droughts in California, which led

to massive forest fires that took weeks to contain.

Scientists agree that global warming caused by human

emissions has intensified the 2015 drought by 15 to 20

percent.

Responding to natural disasters with humanitarian

assistance is the dimension that has been the most

developed by NATO member states. The use of the

military as first responder in case of natural catastrophe

is not new, and NATO has filled this role multiple

times, for instance when Hurricane Katrina devastated

Louisiana in 2005. Since the end of the Cold War,

NATO has gradually expended its scope of action to

encompass humanitarian assistance. Through the Euro-

Atlantic Disaster Response Coordination Centre

(EADRCC), composed of military and civilian staff,

NATO is able to provide disaster relief and it is the

principal civil emergency mechanism in the Euro-

Atlantic zone. The Centre offers both support to

national authorities in terms of supplies and capabilities,

but also provide expertise, even in countries that are

not part of NATO. In 2009 and 2011, the Alliance

extended its prerogatives to give direct access to the

Centre to partner countries. Pakistan, considered as

one of NATO’s Partners Across the Globe, was heavily

hit in 2005 by a huge earthquake that ravaged the

Kashmir region (climate change may have an impact on

seismic patterns. Melting ice sheets diminish soil

stability, thus enhancing the risk of soil movements and

earthquakes). In response, the Alliance provided

Pakistan with supplies, medical units and specialized

equipment. Although there is no automatic

commitment for NATO to support partner countries,

this practice is becoming more and more frequent, as

the Alliance seeks to ensure the security and stability of

its bordering regions. NATO cooperates with partner

countries on the impacts of climate change, as

countries part of the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative

and the Mediterranean Dialogue are particularly

vulnerable to said impacts due to a more arid climate.

Stability is key to the Alliance’s prosperity, and

instability in its close neighborhood is to be avoided as

it poses a strong security threat.

Energy Security and Efficiency

Climate change might have profound effects on the

Alliance’s energy security, which is broadly defined as

“security challenges emanating from the physical and

natural environment”. First of all, increasing

temperatures, combined with population growth, will

reduce the available quantity of resources such as

water. Second, more extreme weather conditions will

affect the production and distribution of energy.

Finally, as countries will try to diminish their

consumption of fossil fuel to reduce their emissions of

carbon dioxide, new energy sources and supplies will

be needed. The defense sector will also have to make

some changes as it is an energy-hungry sector of

activity. In the United States in 2013, 78% of federal

government energy use was attributed to the

Department of Defense, making it one of the largest

users of petroleum in the world.

A stable and continuous energy supply, mainly fuel


and water, is crucial for NATO’s operations,

especially as they are mostly out-of-area missions.

Diminishing fuel consumption has therefore become

an operational imperative, in order to decrease

expenses, increase the endurance of military forces,

limit gas emission, but also to save lives as fuel and

water convoys have been frequently assaulted, notably

in Iraq and Afghanistan.

To respond to these energy challenges, NATO is

trying to implement new ways to conduct its

missions, by incorporating financial and resource

restrictions into the Alliance’s planning. The financial

crisis has shrunk NATO member states’ defence

spending, which have asked for a more efficient use of

resources, including fuel. In addition, climate change

and resource scarcity have pushed the Alliance to

implement new initiatives such as the Smart Energy

Programme. Launched in 2011, it seeks to improve

the energy efficiency of the armed forces, by

increasing the use of renewable energy, and better

management. NATO’s “Green Defence” Framework,

adopted in February 2014, aims to making NATO

“more operationally effective through changes in the

use of energy, while saving resources and enhancing

environmental sustainability”. In this context, NATO

conducted in June 2015 an exercise to test energy-

efficient solutions, the long-term goal being to

introduce technologies to reduce fuel consumption by

deployed troops.

Military operations and preparedness

Climate change will have consequences for

military operations and preparedness on different

levels, and not taking these effects into account will

undermine the readiness of forces. First of all, the rise

of sea levels puts coastal areas at risks, which will have

consequences for transport infrastructures such as

ports, airports and bridges in the affected zones, and

could affect the dispatch of forces. In Norfolk, United

States, floods occurred due to storms and damaged

vessels and the air base. Being the world’s largest naval

base, home to the Atlantic Fleet, and NATO’s only

command on U.S. soil, one can easily comprehend the

strategic importance of the base for NATO’s operations.

Military installations near the coastlines will also be

threatened by erosion, which can potentially damage

infrastructures and reduce the land available for

operations. Second, events such as more severe

droughts, wildfire but more importantly the rise of

global temperatures will threaten training activities and

thus impact personnel efficiency. Finally, climate change

will also have strong consequences on weapons systems,

as conditions such as prolonged temperature exposure

could negatively impact weapon use and efficiency.

Alternatives to vulnerable weapons and installations

must be accounted for in order to maintain an all-time

ready force.

Conclusion

Official integration of climate change as potentially

shaping the Alliance’s security environment has occurred

on multiple occasions since 2010. The implementation

of this acknowledgement has, however, taken some

time. NATO undertook various actions and engaged in a

number of initiatives to adapt to the effects of climate

change, but has until now failed to address the source of

the problem. Although the Alliance is trying to reduce

its resource consumption and its overall environmental

footprint, the question of reducing greenhouse gas

emissions remains mainly a national prerogative.

However, considering that NATO Secretary General

Jens Stoltenberg was once UN Special Envoy on Climate

Change, it is can be expected that climate change will be

further pushed on NATO’s list of priorities.


It is time for the Alliance, both collectively and as

individual nations, to show real commitments to mitigate

the consequences of climate change. NATO, as an energy

reliant organization, must also commit to reducing its

consumption of fossil fuel and finding innovative ways of

adapting its activities to a degraded environment. NATO

should also continue to develop and reinforce

partnerships, especially in regions vulnerable to climate

change, such as the Arctic, the Middle East and North

Africa. As those regions are situated close to NATO

countries, enhancing cooperation and national

preparations in case of disaster is crucial to ensuring the

stability of the Euro-Atlantic.

Today, climate related missions are perceived as

diverting much needed human and financial resources

from places where conflicts take place to disaster-struck

regions. The fact is that climate change will make such

missions more and more frequent, for which NATO must

prepare and set aside the necessary manpower and

logistical means rather than maintain a passive approach

whereby the Alliance is forced to deploy in urgency and

take away resources from more traditional security

concerns.

Migrations are predicted to increase due to a changing

climate. This phenomenon should be seen as an

opportunity, as the Alliance could use it to greatly

improve its overall image by directly addressing climate

change as a serious security threat and organizing

cooperation initiatives aimed at countering and

preventing the effects of the phenomenon.

Although progress has been made, climate change

remains a long-term threat that seems to be quite far

from the present. Consequently, for the time being,

NATO seems to remain more focused on what is

happening in Ukraine and in the Middle East, as those

threats present tremendous short-term risks.

Candice Geinoz is a recent graduate in International

Relations and currently works for an environmental

NGO in Geneva. She focuses on environmental

security issues, with a keen interest in resource-related

conflicts.

BBC News. 2010. NATO joins Albania rescue effort after Balkan floods. BBC News. [Online] December 06, 2010. [Cited: January 08, 2016.] http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-11931554.

Defense, Department of. 2013. Assessing Impacts of Climate Change on Coastal Military Installations: Policy Implications. s.l. : SERDP, 2013.

Dempsey, Judy. 2015. NATO's Absence in the Refugee Crisis. Strategic Europe. [Online] October 22, 2015. [Cited: February 02, 2016.] http://carnegieeurope.eu/strategiceurope/?fa=61710.

Gillis, Justin. 2015. California Drought is Made Worse by Global Warming, Scientists Say. The New York Times. [Online] August 20, 2015. [Cited: February 02, 2016.] http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/21/science/climate-change-intensifies-california-drought-scientists-say.html?_r=0.

IISD. 2015. NATO: Climate Change Poses Significant Threat Multipliers. IIS. [Online] October 12, 2015. [Cited: February 02, 2016.] http://climate-l.iisd.org/news/nato-climate-change-poses-significant-threat-multipliers/.

NATO. 2014. Environment and Security (ENVSEC) Initiative. North Atlantic Treaty Organization. [Online] May 19, 2014. [Cited: February 10, 2016.] http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/109965.htm.NATO2016. NATO Defence Ministers Agree on NATO support to assist with the Refugee and Migrant Crisis. North Atlantic Treaty Association. [Online] February 11, 2016. [Cited: February 11, 2016.] http://www.nato.int/cps/e n / n a t o h q / n e w s _ 1 2 7 9 8 1 . h t m ?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=smc&utm_campaign=160211+refugee.

NATO. 2010. NATO's Strategic Concept 2010. NATO. [Online] November 19, 2010. [Cited: January 28, 2016.] http://www.nato.int/cps/fr/natohq/topics_82705.htm.

NATO Parliamentary Assembly. 2015. Climate Change and International Security. 2015. Resolution 427.

Time Magazine . 2015. How Climate Change is Behind the Surge of Migrants to Europe. Time Magazine. [Online] September 7, 2015. [Cited: January 25, 2016.] http://time.com/4024210/climate-change-migrants/.

UNHCR. 2016. Climate Change. UNHCR. [Online] 2016. [Cited: January 25, 2016.] http://www.unhcr.org/pages/49e4a5096.html

About the author

Bibliography


in the midst of economic difficulties and the recent

dropping of oil prices. At the same time, renewed

tension between Russia and the West over Ukraine and

increased concerns over the effect of climate change

have raised once again the strategic stakes for the future

development of the region bringing about old spectres of

an “ice curtain” descending on the High North.

Breaking the Ice

According to the United States Geological Survey,

around 22% of the world's oil and natural gas could be

located beneath the Arctic for an estimated total of 90bn

barrels of oil and 47trn cubic metres of natural gas. To

those already immense hidden treasures must be added

the huge mineral deposits of iron, ore, copper and

nickel, sub-arctic fish-stocks and the potential impact on

world trade from the opening of the northern sea route.

These resources, however, fall mostly within the

overlapping Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of Russia,

Norway, Denmark, Canada and the US, all of whom

claim sovereignty over at least parts of the extended

continental shelf beneath the Arctic Ocean and the

associated resources.

During the early 2000s, this situation of blurred

borders brought many to speculate on possible conflicts

arising from the competing territorial claims –

particularly the one between Denmark, Canada and

Russia over the Lomonosov Ridge. A peak of tension

was reached on the morning of August 1st 2007, when a

Russian submarine successfully planted a Russian flag on

the seabed under the North Pole symbolically declaring

Moscow’s claim over the Arctic and its yet-untouched

What Happens to the Arctic Does Not Stay in the Arctic…And Vice Versa

By Andrea Bogi

E nvironmental changes, especially those

linked to global climate change, are

quickly giving rise to a broad set of new

economic and political developments creating new

vulnerabilities and presenting new challenges with

worldwide consequences.

The Arctic, warming twice as fast as the rest of the

planet and with its sea ice melting at the alarming rate

of 12% per decade, is undoubtedly one of the

cornerstones of these drastic and potentially

catastrophic changes. The risk of overflowing

meltwater altering global ocean circulation, and the

rising sea levels due to the melting of the Arctic

glaciers are just few examples of the world-scale

consequences of what is happening in the Arctic

Circle. And yet, not all consequences of the

disappearing of the sea ice are as threatening. In

particular, during the past ten years the rapid melting

of the ice cap created great expectations for the huge

economic potential of the Arctic region with the

opening of new opportunities for resource extraction

and shipping routes.

Harbouring immense natural resources, the Arctic

is of great interest to many and as of the beginning of

the 2000s the prospects of its accessibility led all

neighbouring countries to start preparing for the “ice

race”, especially the so-called Arctic five, Russia,

Norway, Denmark, Canada and the US, that officially

have sovereignty over parts of the Arctic Ocean.

However, almost a decade later, the initial

enthusiasm for the Arctic seems to have cooled down


natural resources. The gesture was empty of any legal

value and real political consequences, however, it stirred

the icy waters and brought on the surface the lingering

debate among the Arctic powers over the untapped

Arctic resource reserves and how to deal with them.

Yet, the second half of the last decade saw, along

with the soaring oil prices, a growing spirit of

collaboration among the five Arctic states as well as the

common recognition of the value of coordinated

international arrangements for dealing with Arctic

matters. Cooperation started taking place within the

framework of the Arctic Council - the official

intergovernmental forum of the Arctic and surrounding

states composed by Russia, Canada, Finland, Iceland,

Denmark, Sweden Norway and the United States - and

following the UN Convention of the Law of the Sea

(UNCLOS). As a result, a somewhat fragmented

landscape of multilateral Arctic cooperation has emerged

in multiple areas such as environment protection and

search and rescue collaboration, while economic

investments have been facilitated and encouraged, as

illustrated by the partnerships between the Russian

Rosneft and the American Exxon Mobil to drill in the

Kara Sea.

However, some radical changes over the last couple

of years have deeply affected the status quo in the

Arctic, with the potential of redefining short-term

strategies for the overall development of the region. The

persistence of weak oil prices and the expectation they

will remain low for some years, considerably reduced

the appeal of high-risk Arctic exploration programmes

leading many companies, such as the Royal Dutch Shell,

to put on hold their investments plans. On the other

hand, western economic sanctions on Russia over the

unilateral annexation of Crimea have dealt a huge blow

to the Kremlin’s Arctic ambitions and risk to have a

cascade effect on the decade-long effort for cooperation

in the region.

The Russian Standoff

Often described as a cold and isolated place, the

Arctic, on the contrary, is not so immune from the after

-effects of current geopolitical tensions rising near its

borders. The outburst of the Ukrainian crisis has been

deeply affecting Russia’s oil and gas extraction in the

region as the transfer of the technology required to drill

at high depths and in extremely difficult climate

conditions was halted as part of the sanctions against the

Kremlin.

The sanctions, along with the increased military

tension in the Baltics between NATO and Moscow are

in fact having a potentially destabilising effect on Arctic

policy – especially since seven members of the Arctic

Council partake fully in the sanctions regime against the

eighth member – and are effectively contributing to

undermining one of the main pillars of stability in the

region: Russia itself.

As previously mentioned, the Kremlin has been at

the forefront of the Arctic race since the beginning. As

the most prominent country in the region representing

almost half of the Arctic Circle, Russia had a vested

interest in keeping the Arctic stable due to the need for

Western investments and know-how for off-shore oil

and gas extraction in difficult conditions. However,

cutting the Russians off from Western technology in the

Arctic took away one of the main reasons Moscow had

for preserving the region’s stability.

In the past, the Kremlin balanced its traditional

muscular politics with a strong emphasis on developing

international cooperation in the region. More recently,

and following the rising confrontation with the West,

Moscow seems to have changed its strategy and has

launched an impressive military build-up in the Arctic,


which includes the opening of 10 new airbases to

complement four that are already operational, setting

up a new Arctic strategic command and building a

unified network of military facilities in its Arctic

territory to protect the country’s borders and

interests in the region.

Although an armed conflict between Arctic

powers is very unlikely, the Russian manoeuvres are

raising acute concerns among all stakeholders in the

region, including NATO and the European Union.

Russia’s actions are creating a security dilemma that is

pushing its competitors to respond, which might in

turn fuel the very clash they seek to prevent. Thus,

Norway, Russia's closest Arctic neighbour and home

to NATO’s first Arctic military operations centre, has

been moving troops and equipment north, while large

-scale military exercises are being carried out on both

fronts. In December 2015 the Norwegian

government also announced that Arctic concerns will

cause the country to keep its fighter jets at home

rather than sending them on ISIS-fighting missions,

which clearly outlines Oslo’s primary security

concerns.

Given those premises, it should not come as a

surprise that, in the midst of the fast-evolving

confrontation between Russia and the West, the

climate of partnership in the High North and the

previous practical interaction in joint projects is

rapidly eroding.

NATO’s Arctic Dilemma

With five Arctic States being also NATO

members - namely the US, Norway, Denmark,

Iceland and Canada - it is only natural for the Alliance

to have very high stakes in the current and future

developments of Arctic policy, especially considering

the huge security and environmental implications of a

possible heated confrontation in the North Pole.

That said, the Alliance has traditionally been an

observer of the Arctic chessboard, but always from a

distance and without any direct or indirect intervention.

This can be exemplified by the absence of any formal or

explicit NATO Arctic policy.

In light of Russia’s manoeuvres in the Arctic region,

NATO has recently stepped up its involvement in the

High North. The Alliance conducted, between May and

June 2015, a massive military exercise codenamed

“Arctic Challenge Exercise” (ACE) which involved 115

aircraft and about 4000 troops from nine countries.

Originally organized by Norway, Finland and Sweden,

the exercise involved several NATO AWACS aircrafts

(airborne early warning and control jets) and DA-20

Falcon Jets for electronic warfare as well as units from

the United States, Great Britain, Switzerland, the

Netherlands, Germany and France. In addition, NATO

Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg has been quite

outspoken in the past in calling for increased NATO

engagement in Arctic affairs.

Nonetheless, with some of its own members quite

unsure about whether NATO should have a say in the

delicate political balance of the High North – with

doubts coming particularly from Canada - it is not clear

what kind of commitment could be mastered in the long

term for a stronger presence in the region, and what

consequences such presence could actually have. As

former Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen

rightly remarked, the Arctic “is a harsh environment

which rewards co-operation, not confrontation”.

Moreover, given the specific military nature of the

Alliance and considering the historical precedents of

Moscow’s reaction when NATO flexed its muscles near

Russian borders, any increased involvement of NATO in

the High North could worsen the security dilemma

already at play.


Conclusions

The potential for increased confrontation in the

Arctic region is certainly very high, but catastrophic

predictions for the future of the region are based more

on papers than on reality.

The Arctic is a complex high-risk environment

where, according to experts, operational risks and

economic development – particularly oil and gas

drilling and shipping – amplify one another, leaving the

ecosystem exposed to potentially catastrophic

consequences. Overall, the huge risks involved in

resource exploration and the costs of environmental

preservation are much more of a concern to national

security than any of the new Cold War rhetoric that is

currently engulfing the Great Arctic Game. Those

challenges will require all Arctic powers as well as

interested parties (i.e. NATO, EU and China) to rely

heavily on a cooperative approach to the region.

Despite the apparent re-militarisation of the region

which is fuelled by the present status of the Russia-

West relations, cooperation must be emphasized as it

promises much more benefit to all, particularly in light

of the transit opportunities emerging with the melting

of the Arctic ice and the shifting of the centre of

economic power to Asia.

Furthermore, although in the short-term the

current levels of oil price and the punitive sanctions on

Russia have debunked all prospects of economic

viability for accessing the Arctic energy resources, long

-term prospects remain very high. With climate change

still opening up the Arctic more and more every year

and the global energy demand on the rise, cooperation

and good governance in the region for a safe

exploitation of its natural recourses should be

a priority. Good Arctic cooperation will, however, be

impossible if the West isolates the chief Arctic power.

Politics aside, Russia is the leading Arctic power

by way of sheer geography and any solution not taking

that into account could only have dire consequences.

Andrea Bogi is an expert of European and Russian

affairs. He graduated with Merit from the University of

Birmingham where he pursued a Master’s degree in

Contemporary Russian and Eastern European Studies

and holds a MA in Modern History from La Sapienza,

University of Rome.

Jokela, Juha (2015): Arctic Security Matters. EUISS ISSUE, Report N.24. http://www.iss.europa.eu/uploads/media/Report_24_Arctic_matters.pdf.

NATO Parliamentary Assembly Science & Technology Committee (2015): The High North: Emerging Challenges and Opportunities. http://www.nato-pa.int/default.asp?SHORTCUT=4020

Baev, Pavel K. (2015): Russia’s Arctic Illusions. Brookings. From: http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/order-from-chaos/posts/2015/08/27-russia-arctic-geopolitics-baev

Emmerson, Charles & Lahn Glada (2015): Arctic Opening: Opportunity and Risk in the High North. Chatham House. https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/files/chathamhouse/public/Research/Energy,%20Environment%20and%20Development/0412arctic.pdf

Conley, A. Heather & Rohloff, Caroline (2015): The New Ice Curtain – Russia’s Strategic Reach to the Arctic. Centre for Strategic International Studies. http://csis.org/files/publication/150826_Conley_NewIceCurtain_Web.pdf

Kuersten, Andreas (2015): The Arctic Race that Wasn’t. Foreign Affairs, Aug 2015. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/reviews/2015-08-20/arctic-race-wasnt

Litvinova, Yulia & Makarov, Igor (2014): The Northern Window to the Global World. Rossiya v Globalnoy Politike, 18 December 2014. http://eng.globalaffairs.ru/number/The-Northern-Window-to-the-Global-World-17219

BMI Research (2015): Arctic Circle - Five-Way Territorial Dispute Frozen By Low Oil Prices. From: http://www.bmiresearch.com/news-and-views/arctic-circle-five-way-territorial-dispute-frozen-by-low-oil-prices

Deboer, Sally (2015): Collective Defence in the High North: It’s Time for NATO to Priortize the Arctic. Centre for International Maritime Security. http://cimsec.org/collective-defense-high-north-time-nato-prioritize-arctic/17437

About the author

Bibliography

This publication is co-sponsored by the

North Atlantic Treaty Organization

Atlantic Voices is always seeking new material. If you are a young

researcher, a subject expert or a professional and feel you have a valuable

contribution to make to the debate, then please get in touch.

We are looking for papers, essays, and book reviews on issues of

importance to the NATO Alliance. For details of how to submit your

work please see our website at: http://atahq.org/atlantic-voices/

Editor: Flora Pidoux

ATA Programs On March 1st, 15 ATA members will gather in Brussels for a series of

briefings at NATO Headquarters. Called ‘Brief the Briefers’, this visit

aims to educate ATA members on NATO’s core missions in order to

relay the information in the participants’ national chapters. For the

second edition of this program, NATO will brief the ATA participants on

issues related to the upcoming NATO Warsaw Summit, and more

specifically on hybrid warfare, NATO’s partnership policy and the threats

coming from the East and South.

ATA Secretary General Jason Wiseman lectured at the NATO

Advanced Training Course on “Countering the South East European

Terrorist Threat” which took place on February 14-19, in Ohrid,

FYROM. The event was organized by the Euro-Atlantic Council of

Macedonia, Norwich University and General Mihailo Apostolski Military

Academy. Jason Wiseman gave a lecture on “South East Europe Counter

Terrorism Strategies and Tactics” where he devised a tailored strategy and

tactics for counter terrorism directed at the authorities in South Eastern

Europe.

The Millenium Fellowship Program of the Atlantic Council is

accepting photo/essay submissions from young leaders in Europe under

35 for the “What NATO means to me” fellowship competition. Winners

of the competition will go through interviews, and ten of them will be

selected to win and expense-paid travel to the Future Leaders Summit

which will take place alongside the NATO Summit in July. More

information here: http://woobox.com/5scmm6

Images should not be reproduced without permission from sources listed, and remain the sole property of those sources. Unless otherwise stated, all images are the property of NATO.

Atlantic Voices is the monthly publication of the Atlantic Treaty Associa-

tion. It aims to inform the debate on key issues that affect the North Atlantic

Treaty Organization, its goals and its future. The work published in Atlantic

Voices is written by young professionals and researchers.

The Atlantic Treaty Association (ATA) is an international non-

governmental organization based in Brussels working to facilitate global

networks and the sharing of knowledge on transatlantic cooperation and

security. By convening political, diplomatic and military leaders with

academics, media representatives and young professionals, the ATA promotes

the values set forth in the North Atlantic Treaty: Democracy, Freedom,

Liberty, Peace, Security and Rule of Law. The ATA membership extends to 37

countries from North America to the Caucasus throughout Europe. In 1996,

the Youth Atlantic Treaty Association (YATA) was created to specifially

include to the successor generation in our work.

Since 1954, the ATA has advanced the public’s knowledge and

understanding of the importance of joint efforts to transatlantic security

through its international programs, such as the Central and South Eastern

European Security Forum, the Ukraine Dialogue and its Educational Platform.

In 2011, the ATA adopted a new set of strategic goals that reflects the

constantly evolving dynamics of international cooperation. These goals include:

the establishment of new and competitive programs on international

security issues.

the development of research initiatives and security-related events for

its members.

the expansion of ATA’s international network of experts to countries in

Northern Africa and Asia.

The ATA is realizing these goals through new programs, more policy

activism and greater emphasis on joint research initiatives.

These programs will also aid in the establishment of a network of

international policy experts and professionals engaged in a dialogue with

NATO.

The views expressed in this article are entirely those of the authors. They do not necessarily represent the views of the Atlantic Treaty Association, its members, affiliates or staff.

atlantic voices - climate security

Government & Nonprofit