The Arctic region will play a vital role in future foreign policy strategies and projections of many states, but the effect this will ultimately have on the international political and environmental community is still unclear.

The Arctic Circle is an area of rapidly changing physical geography due to the melting of the polar ice caps. This changing physical geography has resulted in a new emphasis on both the political and environmental importance of the region in the international geopolitical community.

Discourses regarding the melting of the polar ice caps have undertaken many different narratives. The concern stemming from environmental groups has been understandably high.

In 2007, Russia made its own territorial claim by planting their flag at the ocean bottom of the North Pole. Arctic geopolitics has been a hot button issue in the international community ever since.

The geographical region known as the Arctic Circle encompasses the Arctic Ocean as well as parts of many different countries. Yet the majority of this region remains independent from state boundaries, making it one of the last unclaimed territories remaining on the planet.

As the polar ice caps melt, global warming will tend to increase as less solar radiation is reflected back into space. In addition to this, as the ice continues to melt, new untapped resources and shipping routes will open up. These could be positive for business and energy security, but they also have the potential to further undermine both the fragile Arctic ecosystem and the overall environment.

States now intend to exploit the untapped fossil fuel resources beneath the polar ice caps. This is ironic because the burning of fossil fuels in large part led to the melting in the first place. Thus the perverse cycle could prove to be self-reinforcing.

As the global economy enhances its influence over the Arctic, there is a possibility that indigenous peoples will be essentially coerced into becoming more dependent on the global economy as they are forced to adapt to changes in the ecosystem. The influence of globalization could become a self-reinforcing process in the region — much like the climate change process in the Arctic.

It will be crucial for transnational environmental organizations to emerge as leaders in protecting this unclaimed space if the Arctic environment is to be protected in a responsible manner.

Since Arctic-area states have political and economic interests in the region, environmental groups should analyze rhetoric emanating from state actors critically.

Geopolitical strategists need to begin thinking about these issues in terms of global risk rather than just the narrow, selfish interests of individual nations. Global society consists of a series of connections; what happens in the Arctic affects us all. States need to take the connections between further Arctic economic development and increased risks of climate change seriously not only through their rhetoric but also through their actions. Global environmental risk is applicable to every human inheriting the Earth whether they know it or not.

The ultimate question regarding Arctic geopolitics comes down to whether or not globalization will bring political modernity to the region, and if this modernity will be characterized by peaceful cooperation or violence. The Arctic presents a challenge to the state-dominated world order because the territory is perceived as quite valuable, but not yet territorially defined.

The United States should emerge as a leader in facilitating a political arrangement in the Arctic that is respectful of both the indigenous people and the environment in which they live. Not only might other nations follow suit agreeably but the United States would gain a lot of respect in the world leading this charge.

Ethan Demers is a senior political science and history major. His column appears weekly. He can be reached at [email protected].

Published on January 15, 2014 at 2:14 am