New Delhi: Donald Trump is known for his unconventional and unorthodox style of raising international issues. He has displayed renewed interest in annexing Greenland, the world’s largest island and a largely autonomous Danish colony in the Arctic. Recently, Trump went further by not ruling out the use of economic or military force to acquire Greenland, a position he took in 2019 also, during his first term in office. This has put not just Greenland but entire Arctic region in geopolitical spotlight.
Given his peculiar habit of shooting from hip approach, his words should not be taken literally but certainly should be taken seriously. These hyperboles and offbeat messages reveal foreign policy priorities and the way Trump perceives America’s role in evolving international scenarios. Most often, selection of priorities reflect the narrow pecuniary interest of the American state in the name of Make America Great Again (MAGA). He even does not seem to care about American long cherished values, international commitments and sensitivities of alliance partners. Raising of Greenland issues at cursory glance may appear hubristic and idiosyncratic though this issue was raked up during his first presidential term too. The call for independence by Greenland’s Prime Minister, Mute Egede, on the New Year Eve gave further fillip to the discussion. He said “It is now time to take steps for our country” that is removing the “shackles of colonialism”. Given Greenland’s strategic location in the Arctic, the US sees a window of opportunity to encourage Greenland to seek independence from Denmark. Trump’s overt sabre rattling to acquire Greenland signals upcoming militarisation of the region.
Against this background, the discussion surrounding Greenland needs to be looked at in the broader context of the geopolitical and geoeconomic significance of the Arctic as a region.
The Arctic sits at a treasure trove of an estimated $ 11 trillion worth of natural resources, including oil, iron, gold, and, most importantly, rare earth material. China’s near monopoly on rare earth materials and its importance in the sunrise industries of the 4th industrial revolution made the Arctic a new frontier of scramble for resources. So far, no specific claims have been made, and Russia and NATO are ideally placed to take the lead. In 2007, Russia commissioned two submarines to dive below the North Pole’s ice and was claimed to hoist a Russian flag there. It sounded alarm bells in NATO countries and was construed as Russia staking a claim in the Arctic region. With growing Russia and China bonhomie in the wake of the Ukraine war and intensified China-USA contestation in the Indo-Pacific, particularly and claims for global hegemony, in general, make every arena of the globe a contest between China and the USA. China, though not an Arctic country, already declared its ambition of becoming a “polar superpower”. In its’ 2018 Arctic Policy, China pledged to pursue its interest in the region and started investing in its fleet of icebreakers. China is also galvanising support for a proposed “polar silk road” on the line of its flagship BRI project. It aims to connect Asia with Europe with the objective of shortening shipping time, diversifying China’s access to global transport corridors. With a deep pocket, China could make a foray into the Arctic region with Russia’s active connivance. Eventuality of the Russia China duo taking the lead in the region does not augur well for countries in the region and they find themselves left behind in a new scramble for resources in the Arctic. America, the leader of NATO, takes these developments as a threat to its hegemony. America is at geopolitical and geoeconomic contestation with both Russia and China.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warned the world of rising global temperatures, which could lead to faster melting of the Arctic’s northern ice sheet. Even the IPCC estimated that by 2040, the Arctic could be ice-free. This is alarming for the earth’s health and would have disastrous consequences for humanity. It also raises the possibility of new sea routes. Russia is going to be the biggest beneficiary of these new sea routes. Melting of North ice sheets also has significant consequences for international sea lanes of communication. The US military dominance over sea is one of the strongest pillars of its global hegemony. The Possibility of any alternative sea route such as the Northern Sea Route (NSR) is pregnant with possibility of making a dent in its dominance on the high sea.
The shipping conduit that links Asia with Europe, taken as a whole, would be reduced in distance by 40 per cent if the Northern Sea Route (NSR) were preferred to Suez. Experts and stakeholders repeatedly question how the “Arctic route” can affect the commercial importance of the Mediterranean, since the route will be shorter for movement of ships and can eventually save 10-15 days of navigation via this route. This explains why China is so interested in this alternative that enables the region to allow Chinese goods going by the sea to avoid important straits such as the Suez Canal or Malacca. China’s interest in the region is both geoeconomic and geopolitical.
To sum up, the region is going to be an arena of geo-political contestation between the USA and China. As Russia is engaged in Ukraine war and will have to bear short to medium term economic disadvantages, if not long termdue to the ongoing conflict. This will make Russia dependent on China for economic and diplomatic support. In such a scenario, Russia has to play second fiddle to China in the Arctic. Will other Arctic countries succumb to US unilateral approach and bandwagon against Russia-China duo will decide the main players of the Arctic chessboard. In all possible scenarios, it is going to be an Africa like scramble for resources.
*Dr Amitabh Singh teaches at School of International Studies, JNU, New Delhi
Ankur is a doctoral candidate at the School of International Studies, JNU, New Delhi