One of the most famous events in Arctic discourse occurred in 2008. This year is remarkable because it marked the beginning of rising geopolitical tensions in the region. The Arctic, known for its peaceful nature which was at the heart of regional cooperation (a courtesy of the Arctic Council’s philosophy, as well as the conscious avoidance of security issues in multilateral relations between countries), unexpectedly emerged as a potential flashpoint—a scenario not seen since the Cold War.
This was, of course, due to two key events which occurred in 2007 and 2008. The first was the placement of the Russian flag using the underwater apparatus Mir. The second was the prominent geological survey conducted by the United States. Today let us examine the issues surrounding this survey, and the common myths connected to the Arctic in general.
The topic remains relevant for two reasons:
- Annual geological reports still carry the same context which could potentially distort the image of the region, see, for example, our news on the matter—Alaska Holds Large Share Of Undiscovered U.S. Oil And Gas;
- Key documents on Arctic security have been issued after these two events. For example, we see the first American directive on the Arctic by G. W. Bush, the first Russian strategy, and a strategy in Canada.
In practice, this means that 2008 became a turning point for the Arctic, and the region became a focus of geopolitical tensions. The very idea of conflict potential entered the discourse, whereas previously the region had been viewed primarily as an area of common challenges for humanity.
So what was the issue with the prominent 2008 USGS survey and why does it remain problematic for the contemporary image of the Arctic?
Interesting research on this matter by Corine Wood-Donnelly and Marianne Pascale Bartels shows that presentation of survey’s results may have been in favour of States’ national interests:
“While there is no ‘smoking gun’ to suggest that the scientists at the production end of the USGS reports may have been strategic and purposeful actors of the U.S. national interests in Arctic geopolitics, certainly the publication of that science in a way which could be grossly misrepresented should give them a reason to pause. The flawed logics of Arctic geopolitics premised on the significance of oil and gas in the region has resulted in an Arctic discourse that has undermined progress towards the goals of climate governance.”
A follow-up article of the report spoke that “about 30 per cent of the world’s undiscovered gas and 13 per cent of the world’s undiscovered oil may be found there, mostly offshore under less than 500 metres of water relative to world reserves.”
While these figures sound impressive (and were enthusiastically reported by media outlets writing about Arctic treasures), there are numerous problems with this data. Firstly, the comparison itself is quite abstract—the figures stand in a vague relation to world reserves. Secondly, the reports presented the information without delving into ecological factors, costs of exploration, and possible oil spills mitigation. In media, the image was quite distorted:
“Of striking import is the technical language used by journalists and academics to describe the contents of the report. When representing the USGS materials, authors made word choices that, while appearing plausible to the everyday reader, in fact, grossly misrepresent the contents of the USGS report. This includes the use of terms such as ‘undiscovered reserves’ and ‘recoverable’. To the layperson, this would translate as ‘treasure waiting to be found’, but to a geologist it reads as ‘unknown’ and ‘technically recoverable’ if in existence,” say the researchers.
The results of this expedition were presented as if the Arctic contained almost limitless resources available for the taking by nation-states. That is, what was ‘undiscovered’ could be easily found and ‘recovered’. However, factors such as the overall difficulty of extraction in the North (particularly on the shelf) along with potential ecological damage weren’t taken into account.
This created an image which resurfaces periodically—the Arctic as a storehouse of resources.
Why Has This Image Persisted In Public Opinion?
The Arctic has always carried the context of a frontier—a territory that remains on the boundaries, something undiscovered, keeping its secrets. Historically, such a frontier emerged during the Klondike gold rush when people rushed north in search of gold.
The same line of thought persists today. This isn’t to say there aren’t natural resources, but there’s always an expectation of mountains of gold in the Arctic.
In Russian culture, there is an alternative metaphor to Klondike represented by the historic example of Mangazeya, a city famous for its riches earned from fur trading. Throughout history this legendary city acquired the nickname zlatokipyashchaya—‘boiling with gold’. This too has entered the discourse in some form, and reappears periodically.
Graphical reconstruction of Mangazeya, Shemanovsky museum and exhibition complex. Mangazeya Hall. Source: Wikimedia Commons, Vasyatka1, painting by M. I. Belov, CC BY-SA 4.0
For example, when Russia introduced its long-awaited cryptocurrency legislation, public discussion of crypto farms specifically in the Arctic appeared under this very title—Arctic Cryptocurrency Mangazeya, suggesting the region had once again revealed new treasures ripe for the taking.
Once more, expectations of the region shaped a picture of undiscovered riches. The dangers of this perception are obvious, and should always be taken into account.
Incidentally, the USGS results also demonstrate the politicised nature of science diplomacy in the Arctic. Despite good intentions, this is quite evident in strategic documents. For example, Bush’s 2008 directive already included the notion that the States should use science to advance their position in the Arctic.
Let us also touch upon how the Arctic is perceived more generally. Linguistic analysis of media outlets by Elena Safronenkova shows there is a set of lexemes that keep recurring in discussions about the region:
- Lexemes with semantics of research, exploration: exploration, exploitation, to explore, to develop, to exploit.
- Lexemes with semantics of need and aims: priority, significance, importance, vital, crucial, should, have to, must.
- Lexemes with semantics of interest, attention: interest, attention, moves, willingness, to be keen on, to heed, to want.
These are also directly connected to discussions of conflicts and possible challenged in the regions. Based on this data, we can deduce that on some unconscious level there exists a notion of the need to explore and exploit Arctic resources, with a noticeable pattern of interest and future-oriented attention, perspective. As noted previously, an expectation.
All this contributes to a deeper understanding of the Arctic that goes beyond the public image carefully constructed during the 21st century. While sometimes not immediately apparent, these symbols influence perceptions of the region and undoubtedly play a role in Arctic governance and domestic politics of Arctic nations.
AUTHOR