Tyler Mongan, a member of ourEmerging Fellows program inspects the implications of Arctic alternative futures in his tenth blog post. The views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the APF or its other members.

Depending on how Arctic nations respond to the changes in the region will determine if a White Arctic with sustained ice, a Blue Arctic with an increase in open and navigable waters, a Green Arctic with a context of sustainable economic development and cooperation, or a Red Arctic featuring a context of strategic competition emerges. Each alternative Arctic future has different geopolitical, economic, environmental and military implications with unique flashpoints that threaten the stability of the region.

A White Arctic with sustained ice covering limits the ability of nations to develop transportation routes, extract economic resources, access fisheries and expand military activities and infrastructure. This will stifle the amount of investment in the region in the short-term and reduce potential for nations to dispute over EEZ zones and transportation routes in the long-term. Russia’s ability to develop their portion of the Arctic would be decreased and the US would continue limit their economic and military efforts. Strategic competition in a White Arctic would be mitigated by ice. Cooperative research in the region would continue, but with high risk and high cost. However, if climate change continues on the current trajectory, a White Arctic is the least likely scenario to emerge.

A Blue Arctic, with consistent ice melt and an expansion of access to navigable water, seems like the most likely future for the Arctic region. It is estimated by 2050 the Arctic Circle will experience consistent ice-free summers. In anticipation of this future investment in transportation routes, resource extraction, fisheries and military infrastructure will steadily increase. As the Blue Arctic becomes increasingly accessible, developed and militarized we will either see a trajectory of continued cooperation or a pathway to increasing conflict.

A Blue Arctic could turn Green within a context of economic sustainability and sustained cooperation. The geopolitical activities in the Arctic region could become a model of global collaboration with the sharing of risks and rewards. Russia could develop their region of the Arctic and its transportation routes within the rules established by the Arctic Council, China could invest in research and economic developments while also supporting sustainable growth and multilateral cooperation with arctic nations. The US, Canada and European nations could develop their portions of the Arctic with a commitment to cooperation and sustainability. The Arctic nations would need to commit to a common goal of demilitarization and distributed safety and rescue efforts. This Green Arctic might also rally the Arctic Nations, and observer nations, to support collaborative efforts to mitigate climate change. A Green Arctic might seem like a utopian vision, but with some effort and a stronger Arctic Council it could be a potential reality.

A Blue Arctic could easily turn Red especially within a context of competition and conflict. With more accessibility in the region, tensions will natural rise even with an initial commitment to cooperation. The US has already labeled the Arctic as a region of strategic competition signaling a shift in the trajectory of their Arctic geopolitics. This could mean more US investment in military infrastructure in the region. Within a context of strategic competition, Russia might have an upper-hand because they have the largest portion of the Arctic and their portion is showing signs of faster ice melt. Russian development in the region, supported by Chinese investments, could trigger an increase in military activities by US, Canada or European nations. In response, this could trigger increased military activities by Russia, and even China, leading to real conflict. Leading up to a Red Arctic we could also see small micro conflicts over EEZ, transportation routes and fisheries. In a Red Arctic, the Arctic Council would have little influence in the region and nations would act unilaterally or in allied groups.

Another alternative that could arise is a White, Blue, Red, and Green spotted Arctic. We could see White Arctic regions that remain covered in ice even during the summers, preventing development in those areas. Although Blue Arctic regions would dominate the Arctic by 2050, the rate of ice melt will determine the rate of investment. A slow and steady ice melt will allow time for strategic conflict to be mitigated while also ensuring that infrastructure and economic development in the Blue Arctic regions remain sustainable. This would naturally favor larger Green Arctic spots, especially in Canadian and European zones. However, Red Arctic spots could emerge as the climate change shifts fisheries and allows access to strategic military positions. Russian and China will not be shy in exploiting the militarization of the region and the US will be right behind them in expanding military activities.

The geopolitical choices will be framed by the rate of ice melt in the region. Whether these choices lead to a White, Blue, Green, Red or Spotted Arctic will be determined by the Arctic nations investment in activities that foster cooperation or lead to strategic competition.

© Tyler Mongan 2020