+PJOU$SJTJT$PNNJUUFF
*TTVF5IF"SDUJD$POnJDU
INTRODUCTION)AND)BACKGROUND)
“In 2007 the Russians understood the advantages of [claiming the Arctic]. “When Russian divers planted
their flag on the North Pole seabed,” says Per Stig Moller, a former Danish foreign minister, “I chided my Russian
counterpart by saying: ‘Just because you plant a flag there doesn’t mean you own it.’ To which he replied: ‘Just
because the Americans plant a flag on the Moon...’””
!
The Economist, ‘Frozen Conflict’ - 4th December 2013
The current Arctic Conflict heralds the beginning of a new era of ‘heightened socio-political
tension in a predominantly Euro-centric region’1, marked by conflicting sizable claims to the Arctic
by individual nations. Fighting over the world’s last untouched natural resources, the Arctic Circle
has sizable claim to reserves of natural gas and fossil fuels, large ‘incentives for non resourceendowed nations to pursue’2, namely the United Kingdom and it’s conflicting Scandinavian
neighbours. Some of the disputed areas belong to the 200-mile nautical maritime zone of national
territory each nation owns, which further complicates matters for international treaties such as the
UNCLOS to resolve disputes3. Furthermore, environmental concerns now plague diplomatic
procedures4, as nations grow increasingly pressured to provide solid promises of environmental
protection with measures such as the Svalbard Agreement (1920) and the Arctic Cooperation
Agreement (1988).5
Recognizing European sovereignty and balancing the needs of different countries will be a very
difficult task. Averting military intervention should be the prioritized, where future reprisals
against militarization or resource exploitation could lead to ‘concerted but limited intervention by
the major superpowers [USA and Russia]’.6
As of today, the 8th June 2015, diplomacy negotiations will begin and council will be in session. All
futuristic events will take place from this date, and no events have been predefined.
Your task as a delegate is to resolve major problems regarding territorial ownership and resource
rights, to avert any and all possible conflict with your neighbours.
1 Fairhall, David, Cold Front Conflict Ahead in Arctic Waters (London: I.B. Tauris, 2010), 12-13.
2 Ollivant, Simon, Arctic Challenge to NATO (London: Institute for the Study of Conflict, 1984). 18.
3 Young, Oran, Whither the Arctic? Conflict or Cooperation in the Circumpolar North (London: Polar Record, 2009), 51.
4 Ibid, 53. m
5 Goldenberg, Suzanne. "Climate Change Poses Growing Threat to Conflict in the Arctic." The Guardian. May 14, 2015.
Accessed May 14, 2015.
6 Fairhall, David, Cold Front Conflict Ahead in Arctic Waters (London: I.B. Tauris, 2010), 14.
The Arctic Circle
Running 66°33′45.7″ north of the equator, the Arctic Circle is a region of land that literally
‘encircles’ the North Pole. This comprises areas of Greenland, northern sections of Canada and
areas, which have been claimed by various Scandinavian nations like Denmark and Norway.
Studies conducted by the United States Geological Survey conclude that the Arctic Circle has
resources exceeding 22% of the world’s natural gas and fossil fuels.7 Moreover, extensive
commercial fisheries and extensive managerial mechanisms already exist within the area,8 with
firms conducting sustainability tests before venturing beyond Greenland. All nations represented
in Figure 1.1 have had their respective flags claimed at the North Pole on various expeditions.
However, the UNCLOS demands that a both neutral and independent third party, the United
Nations, must evaluate and determine claims.
(Figure 1.1, Demarcated areas of territorial claims
Historically, the first process of disputing territories started with the introduction of the UN
Commission Laws of the Sea (UNCLOS) in 1982, where legal national claims could be submitted to
present arguments to extend nation’s continental shelves. This would henceforth allow extension
in the coverage of their national boundaries. Ownership of particular regions such as the Han and
Queens Islands has been repeatedly contested by nations such as Denmark and Sweden, against
conflicting claims from Russia. On the other hand, four of the five nations facing the Arctic
(Canada, Denmark, Norway and the Russian Federation) have filed claims to an extended
continental shelf, save the United States which has of present, chosen not to submit a claim.
If verified and accepted by the UNCLOS commission, it presents the claimant state rights to the sea
bottom and resources below the sea bottom. However, the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) (a 200
nautical mile zone area around the coastline) limits a state’s expansion into nautical territory. This is
crucial in the resource rich Arctic region, which has failed to be exploited by major oil and resource
multinational corporations.
7
Young, Oran, Whither the Arctic? Conflict or Cooperation in the Circumpolar North (London: Polar Record, 2009), 51.
8
Ibid, 70-73.
KEY PARTIES
JCC 2 represents the Northern Futures Forum (NFF), with representatives from Norway, Denmark,
Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Iceland, United Kingdom, Lithuania and Sweden. Additional visitations
may be made by NGOs during the scenario on behalf of political actors.
Norway
Norway has dual membership within both NATO and the NFF, representing a large majority of
Scandidavian claims to an extended continental shelf. Ratifying the UNCLOS in 1996, it has since
then launched projects to provide a basis for seabed claims on extended shelfs beyond it’s EEZ. On
November 27th, 2006, Norway filed a claim with the UN Comission on the Limits of the Continental
Shelf, providing various arguments to extend a seabed claim 370km beyond in three particular
areas – the “Loop Hole” in the Barents Sea, the Western Nansen Basin and the “Banana Hole” in the
Norweigian Sea.
In addition, Norway has ratified an agreement with Russia on settling a 40-year dispute in the
Barents Sea, claiming Svalbad as sovereign territory. Delegates representing Norway should pay
close attention to the needs of smaller European nations as trade links depend heavily on relations
between these partners.
Norway’s representation in the NFF
Represented in JCC3 are Prime Minister of Norway, Erna Solberg who holds major financial and
diplomatic portfolio powers and the Defence Minister of Norway, Ine Eriksen Søreide, who has
large circles in defence and the military.
Denmark
Ratifying the UNCLOS on the 16th November 2004, it has on the 14th December 2014 filed a claim
of 895000km2 extending to the Russian continental shelf, representing a massive amount of land
covering nearly all of the Arctic tundra.9 Various expeditions have been funded by the government,
mainly the LOMROG I-III expeditions which sought to conduct geological study linking the
Lomonosov Ridge to Greenland’s continental shelf. Denmark is conflicted with the Russian
Federation over several offshore islands as well as the bulk of the Arctic continent.
Denmark’s representation in the NFF
Representing Denmark in the JCC is the Prime Minister of Denmark, Helle Thorning-Schmidt, who
holds the financial and diplomatic portfolio whilst represented also is the Defence Minister of
Denmark, Nicolai Wammen, who has significant contacts within military contractor and army
circles.
9" http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/12/15/a-new-cold-war-denmark-gets-aggressive-stakes-huge-claim-
in-race-for-the-arctic/#__federated=1.
Finland
While having few territorial claims as of present, Finland has the chance during these negotations
to present it’s own positions on extending it’s continental shelf – for instance, it possesses the only
major city to be situated directly on the Arctic shelf. Delegates representing Finland should refer to
‘Finland’s Strategy for the Arctic Region’ released June 4 2010, for more information pertaining to
it’s stance on territorial claims, economy, environment and the European Union. Finland has had
considerable experience in multilateral arctic cooperation such as the Nordic countries' North
Calotte Cooperation, which was initiated in the 1960s, along with the Barents Euro-Arctic Council.
Specializing heavily in Arctic infrastructure, it also provides port services and technology to nations
seeking to invest in expeditions around the Arctic.
Finland’s representation in the NFF
Representing Finland are the Prime Minster of Finland, Alexander Stubb (Financial and Diplomatic
Portfolio), and Defence Minister of Finland, Haglund Carl Christoffer (Defence Portfolio).
Estonia
While not having direct access to the Arctic, Estonia does share a border with Russia. Recent
political actions have aimed to reduce future political conflict over Arctic resources with Russia,
having many Estonian companies seeking engineering solutions to oil extraction in the Arctic. It
would be wise for Estonia to consider the views of Russia in how territorial arrangements play out
to prevent conflict. Recently Estonia’s foreign minister said that Estonia is considering applying for
an observer status in the Arctic council. In defending national interests in the Arctic, Defence
Minister Sven Mikser recently a large military procurement deal worth nearly 140 million Euros.10
This investment deals heavily with Arctic-endurant technology and infrastructure.
Estonia’s representation in the NFF
Represented in JCC 3 are Prime Minister of Estonia, Taavi Rõivas, with significant diplomatic and
financial portfolio powers alongside the Defence Minister of Estonia, Sven Mikser who holds large
power and sway over the military.
Latvia
Latvia is an active EU member which has recently stepped up policymaking towards decisions
regarding Arctic politics and the later effect on the economy. Largely acting as an observer in most
diplomatic scenarios, Latvia is affected heavily by the increasing interdependence and importance
of Nordic-Baltic regionalism and Europeanisation of foreign policy and security concerns.
Moreover, Latvia has been a staunch supporter of EU arctic policy, including the EU’s ND (Northern
Dimension)11 framework, which addresses sustainable development of Arctic regions. Latvia
actively seeks to cooperate in unifed sustainable development and also environmental protection
of the Arctic.
While not having any claims within the Arctic Circle, Latvia has played a key role in mediation and
policy proposals on an international stage. Latvia’s quickly-developing tertiary economy also shifts
it’s priorities towards supporting a sustainable solution to the Arctic conflict.
"Baltic States Spend Big on Defence as Russia Buzzes Borders." The Telegraph. Accessed January 12, 2015.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/latvia/11291713/Baltic-states-spend-big-on-defenceas-Russia-buzzes-borders.html.
10
http://www.kas.de/upload/Publikationen/2014/Perceptions_and_Strategies_of_Arcticness_in_SubArctic_Europe/Perceptions_and_Strategies_of_Arcticness_in_Sub-Arctic_Europe_vargulis.pdf
11
Latvia’s representation in the NFF
Representing Latvia within the NFF are the Prime Minister of Latvia, Laimdota Straujuma has both
diplomatic and financial portfolio powers, and the Defence Minister of Latvia, Raimonds Vējonis
who holds sway over military circles.
Iceland
A Nordic island nation, Iceland is represented at almost all Arctic-related committees at
international and regional levels. On the 28th of March 2011, ‘Iceland’s Arctic Policy’ saw
governmental organizations placing priority on ‘increasing cooperation with the Faroe Islands and
Greenland’ to promote the interests of three nations. Key emphasis has been placed on ensuring
indienous rights are protected, alongside strong emphasis placed on ensuring environmental
conventions are adhered to.
Iceland’s representation in the NFF
Representing Iceland in JCC3 are Prime Minister of Iceland, Sigmundur Davíð Gunnlaugsson who
holds financial and diplomatic powers. Alongside him stands Iceland Foreign Minister Gunnar
Bragi Sveinsson who controls military powers.
United Kingdom
Being an official observer in the Arctic Council and a key European political player, the United
Kingdom in recent years has seen policies increasingly geared towards British dominance in the
Northern Atlantic. British oil companies Shell and Cairn Energy have since 2013 spearheaded an
international drive to commercialize the Arctic, despite massive criticism at the envrionmental
outcomes of such exploitation. Despite their lack of territorial interest, the government wants the
UK to be a global center of expertise in opening up the Arctic to exploration by oil and gas
companies, so so as to promote London as a business hub.12 The UK has little direct power in the
region but it’s environmental and financial responsibilities, if only through oil and mining activities,
remain massive.13
United Kingdom’s representation in the NFF
Represented within JCC 3 are Prime Minister David Cameron with financial and diplomatic
portfolios, alongside the U.K Secretary of State for Defence Micheal Fallon who controls military
and armed interests within the nation.
"UK Aims to Become Hub for Arctic Oil Exploration." The Guardian. Accessed January 13, 2015. http://
www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/oct/17/uk-hub-arctic-oil-exploration-greenpeace.
13 Macalister, Terry. "UK Arctic Policy Review Due amid Surge of Interest in Far North." The Guardian. Accessed
January 12, 2015. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/mar/14/arctic-policy-review-far-north.
Lithuania
One of the 3 Baltic States, Lithuania’s history with the Arctic is terra icognita. Being members of
NATO, it shares similar Arctic policy agreements with major players such as Iceland, Norway and
the United States. Consistently pushing for more transparent diplomatic agreements in the NFF,
Lithuania also plans to raise its military budget, from 0.89% of its GDP to 1.1% of its GDP14.
Furthermore, Lithuania is contemplating on joining the Arctic Council15.
Lithuania’s representation in the NFF
Represented in JCC3 would be Prime Minister Algirdas Butkevičius who controls diplomatic and
financial portfolios of the nation alongside Defence Minister of Lithuania Juozas Olekas who
maintains the defense portfolio.
Sweden
The Kingdom of Sweden is a Scandinavian country in Northern Europe. Recently, Sweden has
decided for a greater than expected defense budget of approximately US$573.4 Million over the
next 4 years16. Sweden is interested in the new emerging activities which will be present in the
Arctic but at the same time is focusing on environmental sustainability. Sweden would also like to
promote economic, social and environmental development throughout the Arctic region17.
Sweden’s representation in the NFF
Represented in JCC3 would be Prime Minister of Sweden Stefan Löfven who holds the portfolio
power of finance alongside the Defence Minister of Sweden Peter Hultqvist who controls private
military and public armed forces.
14
Baltic States Spend Big on Defence as Russia Buzzes Borders." The Telegraph. Accessed January 12, 2015.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/latvia/11291713/Baltic-states-spend-big-on-defenceas-Russia-buzzes-borders.html.
15
Should Lithuania Join the Arctic Council?" The Lithuania Tribune. Accessed January 12, 2015. http://
www.lithuaniatribune.com/44597/should-lithuania-join-the-arctic-council-201344597/.
16
"Sweden's Government Pledges More Money for Defense." Alaska Dispatch. Accessed January 12, 2015.
http://www.adn.com/article/20141024/sweden-s-government-pledges-more-money-defense.
17
"The Arctic: Sweden's Strategy for the Region." The Arctic: Sweden's Strategy for the Region. Accessed
January 12, 2015. http://www.government.se/sb/d/14766/a/167998.
SCOPE OF DEBATE
Delegates should take note of these key concerns when negotiating with delegates from the other
councils, or during the process of policy-making. Each decision made affect the volatile situation in the
Arctic region.
Addressing European (NFF) concerns of economic and political security
The driving force behind the Northern Futures Forum’s opposition to other players is the economic
and political dominance to be gained from controlling the Arctic. As previously mentioned in
Section A, Russia has a record of demarcating territories in the Arctic that conflict with Nordic
claims. Key islands such as the Hans islands provide resource reserves and strategic locations for
further territorial claims. Therein lies the question of balancing reasonable territorial demands
of the NFF with the international community.
Recognizing environmental concerns regarding resource extraction
Major obstacles in the territorial recognition process are activist environmental groups
campaigning for increased awareness of hazards in the Arctic.
Subcontracted extraction
companies tend to disregard existing environmental procedures. These companies also fail to be
liable for actions in their respective industries. Delegates should attempt to balance the views from
the environmental activists alongside their own national interests. Should a resource advantage be
gained with ease by another nation, population trust in their leadership would inevitably have a
decline.
Section E: Proposed Solutions/ Possibilities
Below, in table form, shows the various possible outcomes as the two sides engage in a discourse
during the three day period. However, the two scenarios that are presented below are only for
delegates to consider wider implications of their actions and keep it within the context of mutual
suspicion of the current day context.
Possible Outcomes and Impacts:
Delegates, be prepared intensely for armed conflict. Intervention on a large military scale has
consistently occurred within the JCC experience. You and the delegates you debate with alone
determine the scale and degree of the conflict. Possible military actions include:
2.1) Capturing the strategic Queen Elizabeth Islands located in the Canadian Arctic Archipelago to
possibly halt the advancement of the American and Canadian forces, as well as to determine
strategic points within outlying areas to seize.
2.2) The creation of a collation base on a pre-decided location, to further enhance the presence of
armed forces present in the Arctic, readily available for direct confrontation with enemy forces only
if the need arises.
2.3) The establishment of an operationally ready naval command centered in the Bering Sea and
the North Atlantic Ocean to counter possible enemy infiltrations into the Arctic Circle.
We won’t spoonfeed you with solutions, so therefore find below some questions that might provoke a
few thoughts in mind with solutions that only your nation can offer in this diverse council.
FURTHER QUESTIONS
Prior to the conference, there are several questions that you may like to address in order to prepare
yourself for the spontaneity of the conference scenarios.
For NFF-nations with established territorial stakes within the Arctic region:
• How can we ensure that Russia’s overriding securing concerns are addressed at the
negotiations?
• How can we achieve the territorial goals of the NFF without compromising the territorial
integrity of neighboring nations?
• Should co-operation on a diplomatic level fail, what would we want to achieve out of the
conflict?
• Can international bodies be trusted with mediation?
• Is sustained international pressure on Russia and the US beneficial to European economies
and critical key ties? (the Russian-European oil trade makes up 64% of the entire European
industry)
• How much are we willing to strain Russian-US relations?
• What would be the public’s opinion on our decision?
• What is the political cost of doing this decision?
RELEVANT DOCUMENTS AND FURTHER READING
Attached along with the Study Guide would be an article titled: “Dummies Guide to Procedure in the
Joint Crisis Committee”.
CONCLUSION
As can be seen in the study guide, there is no one-stop and all-encompassing solution to the
volatile situation. This is a futuristic scenario with no fixed consequence in sight – you as delegates
are free to take advantage of crises to mould the endpoint to your own liking. There are many
issues that the numerous stakeholders are concerned with and should be kept in mind when each
council is passing its directive. However, with that being said, do try to keep your options open and
try something apart different from the historical outcome. Let us, the JCC committee; be awestruck
by your originality and creativity.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
http://www.arctic-council.org/index.php/en/about-us/member-states/norway/111-resources/
about/members
http://barentsobserver.com/en/node/18276
http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/12/15/a-new-cold-war-denmark-gets-aggressive-stakes-hugeclaim-in-race-for-the-arctic/#__federated=1
http://www.arctic-council.org/index.php/en/about-us/member-states/finland
http://vm.ee/en/news/foreign-minister-urmas-paet-estonia-considering-observer-status-arcticcouncil
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/latvia/11291713/Baltic-states-spend-bigon-defence-as-Russia-buzzes-borders.html]
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/mar/14/arctic-policy-review-far-north
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/mar/14/arctic-policy-review-far-north
http://www.lithuaniatribune.com/44597/should-lithuania-join-the-arctic-council-201344597/
http://www.adn.com/article/20141024/sweden-s-government-pledges-more-money-defense
http://www.government.se/sb/d/14766/a/167998