Conflict or Collaboration? The Part of Non-Arctic States in Arctic Science Diplomacy

Back to Publications

Ny-Ålesund – an international hub for Arctic analysis (and postal delivery). Photo: Ebru Caymaz

The Arctic Institute Arctic Collaboration Series 2023

The value of Arctic analysis inside the political domain – each at national and international levels – is a multi-dimensional matter encompassed by contradictory views because the nexus among science and politics is also a complicated problem. In addition to the fast melting and receding of the sea ice, an accelerated expansion of maritime activities, environmental issues connected to oil pollution, marine mammal displacement, the atlantification approach, carbon emission, and the COVID-19 pandemic have aroused sustainability and resilience issues in the Arctic area. Furthermore, the Russia-Ukraine conflict has additional impeded international scientific collaboration in the Arctic. Even though the Arctic Council continues its activities with a restricted resumption, how collaboration could continue with no Russia remains a crucial concern. On the other hand, primarily based on the soft energy of science, science diplomacy has verified functional to balance worldwide and frequent interests, encouraging scientific collaboration, and stopping conflicts even in the Cold War period. In addition to, the developing presence of non-Arctic states in the Arctic supplies each possibilities and challenges in distinctive terms. The quantity of Arctic research has significantly enhanced whilst the politics of their existence are also getting questioned. Consequently, science diplomacy could but be an powerful mediator for restoring constructive relationships inside the area. Accordingly, by examining the effective Arctic science diplomacy instances, this study aims to outline the future projections on the part of non-Arctic states in Arctic science diplomacy.

Hot Subject: The Finish of Arctic Exceptionalism?

The Arctic undergoes substantial transformations due to globalization and climate transform. Consequently, it has lengthy been subjected to scientific analysis revolving about climate transform and its related dangers whilst the resilience of the area has seriously been threatened by the aforementioned environmental, social, and financial transformations. Newly emerging financial activities are deemed each an financial chance and a possible threat to safety which final results in accelerated regional militarization.

Previously, primarily based upon the soft energy of science, the uncommon degree of scientific cooperation and collaboration highlighted the Arctic as a one of a kind spot marked by geopolitical stability. On the other hand, referring to the absence of the terrific energy competitors, “Arctic exceptionalism” has been disrupted due to Russia’s militarization tactic along the Northern Sea Route and NATO’s enlargement attempts in return, the unprecedented claims by China as a keen non-Arctic state, as nicely as the current invasion of Ukraine by Russia. In addition to numerous financial sanctions, the Arctic states have paused their participation in the Arctic Council below the chairmanship of Russia, which drastically impedes each the scientific collaboration and sustainable improvement pertaining to the area. Consequently, the Arctic is no longer isolated from the worldwide geopolitical shifts and a developing quantity of scholars highlight that transformation approach as the finish of Arctic exceptionalism.

Competitors or Collaboration? Non-Arctic States and Prospects for the Future of Arctic Science Diplomacy

As a not too long ago institutionalized notion, science diplomacy can be defined as “the use of scientific collaborations amongst nations to address the frequent issues.” The Royal Society and American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) additional added 3 dimensions to the term: science in diplomacy, diplomacy for science, and science for diplomacy.

The emergence of non-Arctic states with diverse analysis approaches and the internalization of Arctic analysis has develop into a controversial topic because they have a tendency to legitimize their existence in the area by relying upon distinctive dimensions of science diplomacy as nicely. Apart from getting a conduit to open option channels for communication and sustain peaceful relations in the Higher North, international Arctic analysis has been criticized to have political dimensions and have hidden agendas such as “seeking a strategic foothold in the Arctic” For instance, previously established as an initial forum for coordination, the improvement of Ny-Ålesund Science Managers Committee (NySMAC) in Svalbard is now asserted as a “de facto” self-management of international Arctic analysis. In addition to, China’s motivations for Arctic analysis are claimed to serve a “dual purpose” of enhancing and testing its military technologies in the Arctic whilst conducting scientific analysis.

Science diplomacy is also criticized as getting “romanticized,” because science diplomacy activities at the worldwide, regional, national, and regional levels could have conflicting agendas and multidirectional paths.

In addition to the Arctic Council, suspension of all projects inside the Northern Forum by the EU, Iceland, and Norway due to the Ukraine crisis has also hindered the scientific communication with the Russian analysis institutions. Consequently, Arctic science diplomacy presently fails to restore constructive relations inside the area.

On the other hand, there are numerous calls by international researchers to resume collaborations with Russian scholars. All these calls have a outstanding point emphasizing the reality that enemy states managed to continue scientific communication even in the Cold War period and in all other conflicts inside the 21st century. Accordingly, they propose to continue scientific collaboration to mitigate the adverse effects of climate transform. Herein, international scientific communities could develop into the important to restore at least scientific communication in the Arctic.

Türkiye: (Un)Anticipated Ally or Strategic Companion?

Even though China’s growing presence and multi-layered intentions in the Arctic have been heavily discussed from distinctive perspectives, there is a basic tendency to overlook the emergence of other non-Arctic states such as France and Türkiye. Becoming amongst the initially nations to develop a scientific station in the Arctic, France declared itself as a “polar nation.”

As opposed to the basic point of view, Türkiye is not a newly emerging non-Arctic state. Mr. Celal Nuri, a congressman from the initially Turkish Parliament visited the area twice (in 1912-1913) and published two books about his experiences in the Arctic. Soon after his visits, Türkiye became an active member of international organizations such as the American Geographical Society, decided to participate in the second International Polar Year (1932-1933), and closely monitored and participated in the following ones.

A single of the international workshops of the 4th International Polar Year in 2007 (October) was performed in Antalya, Türkiye. The following year, the Crown Prince of Norway visited Türkiye to attend a climate transform conference in November. In 2015, Türkiye applied to the Arctic Council for observer status. Implementation of the Turkish National Polar Science Plan (2018-2022) in 2018 has additional enhanced polar analysis. On the other hand, it is noteworthy to mention the establishment of the Polar Study Institute in 2019 below the Scientific and Technological Study Council of Türkiye accelerated the institutionalization of Turkish polar analysis. Upon its establishment, Türkiye performed two Arctic scientific expeditions (in 2019 and 2022) and became a member of the European Polar Board in 2020 and EU-PolarNet. Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) agreements in polar analysis have been carried out with South Korea, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Ukraine, Belarus, Chile, and Spain. Furthermore, Türkiye decided to sign the Svalbard Treaty and initiated the approach in 2022.

Türkiye’s motivation for the Arctic area has transformed in current years as nicely. Turkish shipyards have grown interest in the area because 2015. Owing to their capability to bid reduced provides, Kuzey Star Shipyard is going to develop a floating dock to be made use of by nuclear icebreakers in the Russian Arctic whilst Sefine Shipyard stands out as the only bidder for Russian icebreaker tender. The prior CEO of Atomflot even highlighted the presence of Turkish shipyards in the Arctic by stating that “The Turkish shipyard has all the required competencies and earned a respectable reputation in the shipbuilding market” which relieves the pressures on the sustainable improvement projects inside the Russian Arctic due to big sanctions. On the other hand, by applying a balanced policy, Türkiye also supported Ukraine by supplying the Ukrainian army with its signature Bayraktar TB2 drone which helped them to destroy numerous military targets. Consequently, Türkiye can be deemed a strategic companion rather than an ally of Russia.

Conclusion

There has been a remarkably increasing trend of non-Arctic states’ investments in polar science, logistics, analysis, as nicely as Arctic shipping supported by written policies in current years. Even though the Arctic Council has offered a frequent ground for international scientific collaboration, the suspension of the activities and its subsidiary bodies negatively impacts Indigenous populations, specifically inside the Russian Arctic. In addition to Arctic analysis, how the prevention of emergency conditions would proceed with no Russia remains uncertain because the war in Ukraine is most likely to continue for a lengthy time.

Establishing constructive relations in the Arctic can be described as a twofold approach at the nexus of diplomacy and science. 1st of all, there is a specific and urgent require for diplomatic mediators that would help to transform the existing crisis into a frozen conflict in order to continue scientific collaboration inside the area. Frozen conflict can be broadly defined as a scenario in which active armed conflict comes to an finish with no an all round political option because options at a political level take a lot more time. Herein, Türkiye can undertake the part of mediator for constructive relations because the nation maintains great relations with each states.

Furthermore, international scientific communities would also help that approach by reiterating their calls to restore scientific collaboration with Russian scholars. There are numerous necessary projects, such as organic and anthropogenic radioactivity analysis ready by the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme in accordance with Russian scholars, waiting to be completed. Contrary to Western counterparts, Asian states such as India continue to collaborate with Russian scholars and hold scientific communication channels open accordingly. The other non-Arctic states would also reinforce that approach via science. And then, bilateral dialogues for creating options can be initiated after the aim of frozen conflict has been reached.

Ebru Caymaz is an Assistant Professor from Canakkale Onsekiz Mart University, Turkey. Her initially PhD is in the field of Business enterprise Administration and she has mostly concentrated on sustainable improvement. In order to conduct additional research uniting the safety problems with the sustainable improvement in the Arctic, she has completed her 2nd PhD lectures in the field of International Relations.