The North Pacific Lens: Contributions of the North Pacific Arctic Conference
the Arctic is attracting fresh attention, but the npac has long been a center of expertise on the region.
For most observers of international affairs, the Arctic is literally off the map, a frozen mass surrounded by inhospitable waters that rarely figures in discussions of world politics.
The debate over climate change has partly changed that as the region provides growing evidence of its effects.
While this pivotal part of the world may now be attracting fresh attention, the North Pacific Arctic Conference has long been a center of expertise on the region, writes Oran R. Young.
LAUNCHED in 2011 to broaden and deepen our understanding of the Arctic by looking at the region through a north pacific lens, the north pacific Arctic Conference (npac) has developed into an annual event providing a unique opportunity for practitioners and analysts from the major north pacific states and others interested in the Arctic to engage in free-flowing dialogue in an off-the-record setting. in sharp contrast to large open-ended gatherings such as Arctic frontiers, Arctic Circle, Arctic territory of dialogue, and Arctic encounter symposium, npac offers an intimate setting in which just 30-40 carefully selected participants engage in focused interactions dealing with a range of carefully formulated topics. the result is to generate new perspectives on Arctic affairs and to run innovative policy options through tough but constructive vetting. supported by the Korea Maritime institute, hosted by the east-west Center on its Honolulu campus and managed by a free-standing steering Committee, npac’s format maximizes candid exchanges linked to a general theme articulated in a concept paper prepared in advance of the conference.
Most contemporary thinking about the Arctic reflects — implicitly if not explicitly — the experiences of peoples and societies oriented toward the north Atlantic. While numerous groups of indigenous peoples have lived in the Arctic for millennia, europeans — joined over time by Canadians and Americans — launched the major voyages of Arctic discovery, starting with the
norse around 900Ad and continuing in earnest from 1500 onwards. europeans, including russian elites, also initiated commercial activities in the north (e.g. the operations of the Hudson’s Bay Company and the russian-american Company) to satisfy demand for products such as furs, extending the reach of their colonial control in the process. even today, we typically visualize the Arctic from a north Atlantic perspective, as reflected in bodies like the Arctic Council, whose members are european or trace their heritage to european cultures.
But there are other perspectives on the Arctic. these alternatives have the virtue of introducing new dimensions into our thinking, creating a more complex picture of a region of growing global importance. Over the course of a decade, npac has developed what we can call the north pacific lens for looking at the Arctic.
Alternative visualizations drive our thinking about spatially defined regions, shaping views regarding those who are or should be treated as legitimate players, the policy agendas associated with regions, and appropriate ways to frame issues in relevant policy arenas. the significance of this observation with regard to our perspectives on Arctic affairs becomes evident from a consideration of the projections embedded in the four maps shown above and overleaf.
Map 1, based on the Mercator projection, conveys a familiar view of the world. it presents what is essentially an Atlantic-centric perspective on the global system and encourages us to think that europe and north America are the core regions in world affairs. no one whose view of the world is based on this projection would think to identify the Arctic as a distinctive region. greenland looms abnormally large. russia is split between europe and Asia; the north pole lies beyond the limits of the known world, and there is no way of knowing that russia and north America face one another across the relatively narrow space of the Arctic Basin. At best, the Arctic is a fringe area well outside the mainstream of world affairs.
Contrast the Mercator projection with Map 2, conveying an understanding of the circumpolar north shared widely among those who have taken the lead in Arctic affairs since the waning of the Cold War. in this projection, the Arctic becomes the center of attention. russia stands out as the primary player in the region. But it is easy to see why the five states with coastlines bordering the Arctic Ocean — Canada, denmark/
greenland, norway, russia, and the United states — often think they can and should dominate Arctic issues. We might label this the ilulissat projection to reflect the point of view of the coastal states articulated in 2008 in their Ministerial declaration on the Arctic Ocean. it does not require any fundamental shift in this view to widen the scope of Arctic affairs to draw in finland, iceland and sweden, all of which are european states exercising jurisdiction over areas to the north of the Arctic Circle. But from this perspective, the major north Asian states — China, Japan, and Korea — are simply invisible. if we operate on this basis, it is difficult to come up with scenarios in which these north pacific states have legitimate Arctic interests.
Compare this visualization to the alternative perspective embedded in the projection underlying Map 3. Here the pacific Ocean becomes the center of attention, and the Arctic is visualized as a northward extension of this ocean. the region emerges as a kind of cap on the globe linked to the mainstream currents in world affairs. Arctic issues now feature trans-pacific concerns, with Canada and the Us on one side and China, Japan, Korea and russia on the other. Looked at in this way, it is easy to understand why those whose thinking reflects the filter of the north pacific lens tend to turn their attention to matters of maritime commerce and are less attuned to the concerns of the Arctic’s human communities. interestingly, this projection helps us to understand China’s characterization of itself as a “near Arctic state,” a view that many Western observers have dismissed as a fabrication developed purely for political purposes. Overall, the Arctic of Map 3 looks like a very different place from the Arctic of Map 2.
One obvious inference is that the north pacific lens filters our thinking about Arctic affairs through a frame of reference highlighting global concerns. the six key states — Canada, China, Japan, Korea, russia, and the Us — include the world’s three largest economies, provide homes for the world’s principal stockpiles of nuclear weapons, and account for more than 50 percent of global emissions of greenhouse gases. As a result, this lens draws our attention to the importance of global-arctic interactions, or what npac calls the Arctic in world affairs. Whereas it seems reasonable to think of the Arctic of the ilulissat projection in terms of a narrative highlighting the Arctic as a “zone of peace” and to regard the Arctic Council as the principal forum
addressing Arctic issues, these premises are by no means self-evident to those who view the Arctic through the north pacific lens.
What arises instead is a perspective on the Arctic that highlights overarching geopolitical and geo-economic forces. Western sanctions imposed on russia in the aftermath of the annexation of Crimea in 2014, for instance, have generated incentives for russia and China to make common cause on a range of issues, including Arctic projects like the development of the massive deposits of natural gas in northwestern siberia. growing tensions between China and the Us have reinforced this development, encouraging China to articulate the idea of the polar silk road, which reflects China’s interest in securing access to supplies of energy and other raw materials that do not require access to the Middle east and safe passage through areas like the straits of Malacca. At the same time, the north pacific lens also draws attention to the fact that russia and the Us are north pacific neighbors who share a number of interests. the two countries control the Bering strait, the only point of access between the north pacific and the Arctic Ocean. they have taken a number of specific steps to cooperate on environmental, cultural and commercial matters in this area, even during a time of rising tension between the two countries regarding global issues.
the north pacific lens also draws attention to maritime commerce fueled by the explosive growth of China in the global trading system, Asian prowess in marine technology, and recognition of the advantages of using the great circle route passing through the Bering sea. it is not surprising that this visualization stimulates interest in the potential for increased ship traffic using the northern sea route as a commercial artery, the development of highly sophisticated ships capable of operating safely in Arctic waters throughout much of the year, and the design of coastal infrastructure making use of advanced technologies to minimize the difficulties of operating in harsh environments. Whereas the Arctic of the ilulissat projection is a region in which human communities are rooted in the land masses surrounding the Arctic Ocean, the Arctic as seen through the north pacific lens is a maritime realm in which humans living elsewhere take an interest in extracting the natural resources of the Arctic and enhancing commercial navigation. Looked at in this way, the concerns of the Arctic’s human communities seem less prominent, though npac itself has played a role in raising the consciousness of particifor
pants from China,
Japan, and Korea regarding the rights of the Arctic’s indigenous peoples.
there is no point in debating whether one of these perspectives on the Arctic is superior to the others. Yet it is important to bear in mind that many participants in npac sessions bring with them, at least implicitly, an understanding of Arctic affairs filtered through the north pacific lens. this does not preclude joining forces with other perspectives to develop solutions to concrete matters where interests overlap. the Arctic Migratory Bird initiative (AMBI) launched by the Arctic Council through its Working group on the Conservation of Arctic flora and fauna, for example, has drawn co-operative responses from non-arctic states including China, Japan, and Korea that exercise jurisdiction over key components of the east Asian-australasian flyway and share an interest in the protection of migratory birds with Arctic states that exercise jurisdiction over the birds’ breeding grounds. Yet it is critical to grasp the significance of the differences in the vantage points of those who play important roles in responding to policy issues in the Arctic. this becomes particularly important in dealing with global developments — climate
change, economic (de) globalization, the spread of pollutants (e.g. plastic debris) on a global scale and now the coronavirus pandemic — that are likely to have transformative impacts on the Arctic.
in light of these observations, it may help to offer a fourth visualization of the Arctic that sees the Arctic as the centerpiece from a north pacific vantage point. As displayed in Map 4, this north polar stereographic projection has already provided a perspective for npac on the growing links between the Arctic and the overall earth system. As we struggle to make sense of the critical role the Arctic plays in the earth’s climate system, the attractions of the Arctic for those interested in maritime commerce, and the reasons why the Arctic has become a renewed focus of great-power politics, this projection highlights the Arctic in world affairs without discriminating for or against the concerns of any of the key players.
Another feature of this projection, which participants in npac dialogues have noted repeatedly, is that it looks outward toward the rest of the world in contrast to looking inward toward the Arctic from one or another external perspective. this reminds us that the Arctic is not an
land simply waiting to be discovered by outsiders and subjected to jurisdictional claims launched by political authorities far to the south. the Arctic is a homeland for a diverse collection of indigenous peoples whose roots in the region’s biophysical systems run deep and whose rights and interests deserve recognition on the part of outsiders. this means that it is important at all times to think about the region not only from the outside looking in but also from the inside looking out. from a policy perspective, this is a principal difference between the Arctic and Antarctica, which has no indigenous cultures. striking a proper balance between these outward-looking and inward-looking perspectives is challenging, especially in an era featuring tighter links between the Arctic and the earth system. But there is no way to come to grips with a variety of prominent Arctic issues today without addressing this challenge directly.
FRAMING THE ARCTIC AGENDA
this brings us to npac’s role in the formation of an Arctic agenda. the idea of agenda formation encompasses three distinct elements. One is early warning, a matter of spotting emerging issues before they come to the attention of most observers. A second centers on framing issues for consideration in relevant policy arenas. since it is possible to think about most issues in a variety of ways, those who are able to intervene effectively at this stage in the process can exercise considerable influence. the third element concerns prioritization. Because policy agendas are generally crowded and the capacity of policy arenas to address multiple issues at the same time is limited, efforts to set priorities are always political and often intensely controversial.
the decade of the 2010s has featured transformative changes in the Arctic, giving rise to what many now describe as the “new” Arctic and to calls for innovative approaches. Of course, it would be a mistake to overestimate the influence of npac in this regard. But annual sessions of the conference have sought with some success to grasp the implications of this development and to play a role in shaping the contours of our thinking about Arctic affairs. three broad themes stand out in this regard: 1) the place of the Arctic in the changing global order, 2) the evolution of the Arctic governance system, and 3) the role of policy instruments that are not overtly political.
While others think of the “new” Arctic in largely regional terms, npac has embraced the projection embedded in Map 4 and directed attention to global-arctic interactions that bring several emerging issues into sharp focus. the impacts of climate change are showing up more rapidly and dramatically in the Arctic than anywhere else on the planet. this has triggered powerful feedback mechanisms affecting the earth’s climate system as a whole. Among other things, it legitimizes the interests of non-arctic states such as China, Japan and Korea in developments occurring in the Arctic. But it also highlights the need for outsiders to supplement claims regarding their status as legitimate Arctic stakeholders with the development of a sense of responsibility for the disruptive effects of climate change on Arctic biophysical and socioeconomic systems. At the same time, the combined effects of climate change and globalization are drawing the Arctic to the attention of those who think in geo-economic terms. increased accessibility has made the Arctic a growing factor in world markets for fossil fuels and other raw materials and generated expansive visions of an Arctic sea route in maritime commerce. the future is far from clear regarding these enterprises, especially as the lasting impacts of the coronavirus pandemic start to become apparent. But npac has played a significant role in directing attention to global-arctic interactions and framempty
ing issues emerging from this perspective for consideration in policy arenas.
there is a notable disconnect between the concerns of those who argue that climate change is an emergency of global proportions and the issues addressed by those seeking to understand the role of the Arctic in the global economic system. this disconnect is visible in many settings today, but the starkness is particularly apparent in npac deliberations that commonly move directly from a discussion of the disruptive effects of coastal erosion and melting permafrost on community infrastructure to a discussion of advances in marine technology making it possible to build Lng tankers that can operate safely and efficiently in Arctic conditions. npac has not devised a means of coming to terms with this disconnect; perhaps no one can at this stage. But unlike many forums, npac provides a setting for in-depth dialogue regarding this conundrum, engaging well-informed people who are able to talk freely in an off-the-record environment.
from the outset, npac has taken an interest in matters of Arctic governance and the institutional arrangements needed to address governance. in the early days, the interest of non-arctic states in becoming Arctic Council Observers motivated those who supported the work of npac. since the acceptance of China, Japan and south Korea as Observer states in 2013, this has evolved into exploring ways for observers to participate meaningfully in the Arctic Council. But more generally, npac has directed attention to the Arctic governance system as an increasingly complex collection of non-hierarchical elements extending well beyond the Arctic Council to include arrangements like the Arctic economic Council, the polar Code, the Central Arctic Ocean fisheries Agreement, and the recurrent gatherings of science Ministers in which non-arctic states are able to participate as recognized members.
We are witnessing today a growing tendency to frame Arctic issues in realist or neo-realist terms, stressing geopolitical perspectives that draw attention to high politics in the Arctic and the role of power as a determinant of Arctic affairs. Some observers are deeply troubled by the consequences of the (re) emergence of great-power politics in forums like the Arctic Council.
Over the years, npac has provided a setting for innovative thinking about Arctic governance, including ways to improve communication between the Arctic states and non-arctic state observers in the Arctic Council; strategies for ensuring that Arctic agreements like the polar Code make a successful transition from paper to practice; the special circumstances of semi-autonomous actors like greenland; and measures designed to co-ordinate the various elements of Arctic governance in order to avoid problems arising from unintended side effects. As the significance of the Arctic as a component of the changing global order rises, the importance of devising suitable ways to address these issues will increase in the coming years.
We are witnessing today a growing tendency to frame Arctic issues in realist or neo-realist terms, stressing geopolitical perspectives that draw attention to high politics in the Arctic and the role of power as a determinant of Arctic affairs. some observers are deeply troubled by the consequences of the (re)emergence of great-power politics in forums like the Arctic Council. By contrast, npac has devoted more attention to exploring how initiatives that are not overtly political nevertheless shape the Arctic policy agenda and to understanding the role of “soft power” in Arctic affairs. such initiatives can take a variety of forms, including investments in Arctic infrastructure (e.g. the port of sabetta in the russian Arctic), the encouragement of new commercial ventures (e.g. shipping along the northern sea route or the creation of a rail link between finland and the Barents sea), a focus on technological innovation (e.g. the development of the Arc-7 class of Lng tankers), or the assumption of leadership in the pursuit of knowledge (e.g. the mounting of the MOSAIC expedition). the primary purpose of these initiatives is not to challenge the primacy of the Arctic coastal states or to reframe the Arctic agenda in a manner favorable to the interests of non-arctic states. Yet it would be a mistake to ignore the political consequences of activities of this sort. taken together, they have major consequences for the Arctic policy agenda, influencing the identity of stakeholders and the trajectory of interactions among them. npac’s deliberations not only reflect this development; they also have helped to promote ways to avoid the tendency to look at such initiatives largely through the lens of conventional geopolitics.
Conclusion
While no visualization is right or wrong, alternative perspectives shape our thinking about international regions like the Arctic. Over time, npac has developed a way of thinking we characterize as looking at the Arctic through a north pacific lens, a visualization that augments and brings into sharp focus a number of features of the Arctic policy agenda. the point is not to drive out other perspectives, but bringing a north pacific lens to bear adds new dimensions to our understanding of the Arctic in world affairs. oran r. young is Professor Emeritus, the bren school of Environmental science and Management, the university of California, santa barbara.