THE ARCTIC ATTRACTION

Just when you think things could not get more bizarre,
they suddenly do.
Recently, US President Donald Trump talked of
purchasing Greenland, the world’s largest island. Fair
enough: he has, after all, purchased expensive parts of
the world’s most famous island, Manhattan. “Absurd,”
dismissed the prime minister of Denmark, of which
Greenland is a semi-autonomous constituent territory.
“Nasty!” responded Trump, cancelling his Denmark
visit.
This could have ended there, a choice morsel in the
24x7 tweet-fest from Washington. But there is more
here than the covetous glance of a real estate mogul at a
generous swathe of beautiful, virgin territory. Earlier
attempts by the US to buy Greenland—in 1946 and in
1867, the year of the Alaska purchase from the still
smarting Russians—as well as fresh plans to open a
consulate in Nuuk, Greenland’s capital, confirm an
abiding strategic intent.
Greenland abuts into the Arctic, a region balanced in
relative equilibrium between the Arctic nations—
Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden,
Russia and the US. But global warming has brought its
riches, till now frozen in primordial ice, within reach of
greedy human hands. As the region warms at twice the
global average, it is open season on valuable minerals,
rare earths, 6 per cent of the world’s known oil resource
and 25 per cent of gas reserves. The possibilities of pelf
and profit are proliferating.
As are the rivalries. Russia, with its 24,000km Arctic
coastline, is a Polar Great Power, building massive
power plants, ports, military facilities and adding to its
ice-breaker fleet. China is investing heavily in Arctic
nations for energy and resources, its eyes set on the
Northern Sea Route (NSR) that could cut down
container travel time between Europe and China by
several days. The Chinese refer to it as the Polar Silk
Route and to themselves as a “near Arctic nation”. With
ice-free summers in the Arctic estimated to be 20-40
years away, the NSR may soon be a viable reality. The
Chinese flag, displayed on nuclear submarines, will
inevitably follow. Against all this, the US does seem
behind the curve; a Greenland purchase does not sound
so over-the-top anymore.
This surge for dominance is virtually unregulated.
Unlike Antarctica, protected by a treaty, the Arctic is
open to sovereignty tussles, with nations claiming 200
nautical miles of exclusive economic zones and
overlapping continental shelves. Add the complication
that the US has not ratified the Law of the Sea and you
have the makings of a wild North.
Only the Arctic Council, focused on environment
protection and sustainability, regulates cooperation in
the region. India became an observer to the council in
2013 after an intensive campaign, its credentials
burnished by creditable scientific work in Antarctica.
Interest in trade and resources was played down. Our
contribution to the council, however, has been less than
substantial. Scarce resources and competing priorities
result in only token appearances at its meetings in
remote destinations like Yellowknife and Whitehorse.
Himadri, India’s research station on Svalbard, 1,200km
short of the North Pole, remains the sole bright spot.
A comprehensive Arctic strategy should now be in the
pipeline. Close engagement with Arctic nations,
meaningful participation in council meetings, outreach
to Arctic indigenous communities and sustained
scientific work will play to our strength. Trade and
strategic presence will follow.
Incidentally, the 1920 Svalbard Treaty conferred
sovereignty over Svalbard on Norway. It also conferred
equal rights of access, hunting, fishing and other
economic activity on the other signatories, which
include India as a British ‘dominion’. Bit of a schlep to
catch a fish, but it is good to know.
The writer is a former high commissioner of India to
the UK and ambassador to the US
