In April 2010, Russia and Norway signed an agreement demarcating their respective maritime borders in the Arctic. So ended 40 years of negotiations over an area of 175,000 square kilometres.
Since 2010, two things have changed significantly. First, the UK government has become more concerned than ever before about its role as an Arctic actor; and second, Russia has been engaged in a major war with Ukraine, stimulating a substantial response from Europe and, under President Biden at least, the US.
Might peace be possible if cooperation between states in the Arctic, which had prevailed through most of the postwar period, can be restored?
Britain as an Arctic actor
Recent UK Government publications demonstrate how the Arctic has become a rising priority. From early beginnings, such as the summer research station established in 1972 at Ny-Alesund in the Svalbard archipelago, UK political and research engagement in the Arctic has been growing.
In 2013, the UK government issued a policy framework which outlined its views on the Arctic region. The framework reinforced engagement with the region based on acceptance of peace, sovereignty, and respecting indigenous peoples. It also recognised the Arctic’s environmental characteristics and the need for development to be sensitive.
The government accepted the leadership position in the region of the eight key Arctic states of Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, the Russian Federation and the US. It was also at pains to stress the UK research activity in the Arctic. At the time, and subsequently, the UK’s claimed climate ‘leadership’ did not include stressing the importance of ending oil and gas exploration throughout the region as a global contribution to resisting climate change.
It wasn’t until 2018 that the government followed the policy framework with its report Beyond the Ice. From the beginning, the new document stressed environmental change and decline in sea ice in the region.
The expansion of Arctic tourism, noted in 2013, and allusions to cooperation throughout the region, were re-affirmed in the new document. New elements in 2018 included:
- Stressing the “need” to protect the UK’s “global influence”
- a much stronger emphasis on prosperity and development
- affirming the UK’s role in the Arctic with Arctic States post-Brexit
- mentioning the UK role in the study of the Arctic environment changes, e.g., black carbon deposits.
Among research initiatives, the UK Changing Arctic Ocean Programme 2017-22 is notable for its 14 projects and cooperation with the German Government.
Defence and economics
Before Russia’s 2022 invasion of the Ukraine, a Ministry of Defence report stressed that the UK had a significant defence role in the Arctic.
Security had featured in Beyond the Ice, as well as a more general concern about safety of all types of vessels and people travelling in the Arctic region.
Declining sea ice opens the possibility of more trade passing through the Northern Sea Route reducing shipping times by as much as 10 days compared to going through the Suez Canal. This is a significant economic consideration. Given recent interference with undersea infrastructure in the Baltic and North Sea, it is not surprising that the Ministry of Defence report stressed the UK’s NATO defence role in protecting critical national infrastructure.
Russia is pressing the UN to allow expansion of its area of control of the Arctic seabed, currently governed by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). The latter has been summarised and analysed by the House of Lords International Relations and Defence Committee.
Looking North, in 2023, updated the UK Arctic policy framework in the context of Russia’s war on Ukraine. This new iteration of UK foreign policy in the Arctic region elaborated and emphasised UK support for the Arctic states and their actions regarding Russia.
Arctic institutions and peace
The Treaty of Spitzbergen, agreed in 1920, established a Norwegian de-militarised administration over the islands of what is now called the Svalbard archipelago. The possibly unintended collaboration between states under this treaty led to the formation of The Arctic Council in 1996, the Member States of which are the eight key arctic states mentioned above.
The Arctic Council’s major output of recent years includes its immense ‘Oil and gas assessment’ – a several hundred page document which is comparatively pessimistic about the environmental effects of extracting hydrocarbons in the Arctic region. In addition, the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment evaluated and synthesized knowledge on climate variability, climate change, and increased ultraviolet radiation.
Whilst the Arctic Council has no security functions, its exclusion of Russia on grounds of its war in Ukraine, and subsequent work without Russia, is in a period when both Sweden and Finland have pursued NATO membership.
This makes it difficult to imagine how a future Arctic Council post-war in the Ukraine will easily include Russia as a key state despite its 4,000 miles of Arctic coastline. However, if trading nations want unfettered access to the thawing ‘Northern Sea Route,’ and thereby to China and India and beyond, cooperation with Russia is clearly critical.
The changing environment of the Arctic as a diplomatic force for peace?
The trade imperative may bring states together over time to achieve cooperation needed for more vessels to move through the Arctic. Cruise ships are also already doing so. However, there are two other long-term considerations in what may be a very long route to peace in the region.
First, system change in Russia. It is remarkable how media outlets very rarely mention any possibility of system change in Russia that might dislodge Putin and his aggressive foreign policies. A Chatham House assessment appears quite pessimistic about any change in Russia, even post-Putin. The turning of Russia towards China as its major ally is giving the latter a larger role in the Arctic, supporting its use of the ‘Northern Sea Route’ for trade.
Secondly, the decline and eventual cessation of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) is expected during the period up to 2100. Recent research suggests both decline and cessation could occur decades earlier than previously thought, with some estimating that it could begin as early as 2025. This remains a matter of debate amongst scientists, although there is generally agreement that AMOC has been declining. It should be noted that the Arctic as a whole has increasing temperatures at four times the global rate of change.
Climate change to policy change
If AMOC ceases, then the conditions of the last ice age might return. What has begun with immense amounts of cold, fresh water being added by the melting of Greenland’s ice to the north Atlantic could mean that the heat supplied by AMOC to the ocean off the British Isles, north west Europe and up to northern Norway and Russia, would halt.
This warmed ocean permitted the ‘Kola Run’ during the Second World War – the shipping of supplies including armaments to Russia. These convoys enabled a massive counterattack by Russia on German forces along a 1000-mile front as a decisive aspect of the war.
Cooperation between states under conditions of a declining AMOC would demand greater emphasis on combined search and rescue efforts. Changes in agreements concerning fisheries throughout the Region would be essential as well as review of the need for ice breaking vessels through the Northern Sea Route. Alterations to the security postures of mutually antagonistic states seem inevitable.
Back to system change in Russia?
All this assumes peace is possible, most likely as a result of trust-building measures over a long period of time. It would require pragmatic, extremely patient, and consistent efforts to secure a lasting peace in which Russia is neither at war with its neighbours nor in an antagonistic position towards them.
Matters may be complicated in the short term if the Trump administration attempts to impose a ‘peace’ which involves ceding land in Ukraine to Russia. This would, in effect, declare a Putin victory, an outcome which would be unacceptable to many, if not all, European states.
That neither present US nor Russian governments recognise the climate emergency or its implications for their foreign policies helps no one. Peace seems highly elusive in the immediate future.
We want to hear your views. Please send any comments to editor@westenglandbylines.co.uk
In recent years, Gloucestershire has been at the heart of a sewage pollution scandal that has raised alarm among environmentalists, residents, and councillors. The county, known for its famously picturesque landscapes, including the rolling hills of the Cotswolds and the splendour of regency Cheltenham, has been grappling with copious amounts of raw sewage being discharged into its rivers. This issue not only threatens the natural beauty of the area but also has serious consequences for public health and wildlife.
The Problem unfolds
The scale of the pollution crisis really struck me in 2019, when I first met the lobby group WASP (Windrush Against Sewage Pollution). I was staggered by how much our beautiful rivers were being contaminated. It was revealed that water companies, particularly Thames Water, had been discharging untreated sewage into the rivers for extended periods.
These discharges are a result of a combination of factors, including heavy rainfall, overloaded sewer systems, and a reliance on combined sewer overflows (CSOs) designed to prevent sewage backups during storms. However, in Gloucestershire, these overflows have been used far more frequently than anticipated, leading to the release of raw sewage into the rivers.
Just last year alone there were 2000 hours of untreated chemicals and human waste pouring into the river at Andoversford in the North Cotswolds.
Public Outcry and Water Company Mis-steps
The scale of the sewage discharges has prompted public outcry. Local residents and lobby groups have called for tougher regulations to hold water companies accountable and ensure that raw sewage is no longer routinely discharged into rivers.
In response to the scandal, those same water companies have slowly realised they have to act. Governments are also waking up to the stink.
Which brings me onto the latest faux pas extraordinaire from Thames Water. Faced with massive criticism over paying dividends to shareholders whilst racking up eyewatering debt and paying large bonuses to its CEOs, what did it do next?
Well, Gloucestershire County Council – at its meeting in June 2024 – unanimously called for the CEO or Chair of the troubled water company to come to a special meeting of councillors and answer questions about pollution and sky rocketing water bills. That meeting happened in November and the CEO failed to turn up. His representatives valiantly answered the councillors’ complaints but it was clear that, for the current CEO, this was not something that justified his valuable time. No apology was given or received.
The no show has done nothing to dispel the view that having privately owned companies running such a vital public service is proving a bad mistake.
Moving Forward
As Gloucestershire and the rest of the UK face the challenges posed by climate change, it is clear that addressing sewage pollution will require long-term commitment, both from the government and from the water companies.
Only by taking immediate and bold action can we hope to preserve the natural beauty and public health of Gloucestershire’s rivers for generations to come. That should include making those companies public interest and not for profit. And being open, available, and present for residents and their elected representatives.
Paul Hodgkinson is a Gloucestershire County Councillor for Bourton on the Water & Northleach and stood at the General Election this year in the North Cotswolds.
