Ashley Wong

ashley.wong@duke.edu
(516) 708-7298
Writing Sample:
The following is a section taken from my final research paper assigned by
my Arctic Natural Resources & Geopolitics class during my Fall 2014 semester abroad in
Copenhagen, Denmark.

THE ARCTIC FUTURE BY WAY OF INTERNATIONAL AND INDIGENOUS COOPERATION

At the moment, the Arctic region is undergoing significant changes of political, environmental, and
cultural natures that will continue for years to come. As global environmental changes fuel the opening of a
historically impenetrable part of the world, international discourse has followed, shifting its focus to the
abundant natural wealth locked within the Arctics ice sheets, as well as shipping potential made possible by
melting ice (Dodds, 2012). Despite the economic opportunities, the international community acknowledges
the deleterious side of climate change notably the implications it also has for both biodiversity and
indigenous culture. A warming Arctic has thus not only caused concern for the preservation of natural and
cultural habitats, but also concerns of a political and governmental infrastructure adequately capable of guiding
Arctic affairs in the 21st century. With the appearance of more political players who intend to pursue arctic
assets, the existence of effective governance that facilitates international relations will be of utmost
importance.
Existing intergovernmental forums whose domain lies in arctic matters include the established Arctic
Council and the newly incepted Arctic Council. Contributing local insight to the international discussion are
the indigenous populations of the Arctic, such as the Inuit, who have progressively gained a prominent voice in
policy-making traditionally dominated by the Arctic states. However, whether or not this three-pronged system
is equipped to handle the influx of diverse and competing interests spanning from all over the world will be
tested in the upcoming years. From a rationalist perspective, what will prove to be indispensable in the future
is greater consolidation and cooperation among all involved parties specifically, a collaborative endeavor that
will allow states and indigenous populations to pool their resources together to make the scramble for the
coveted Arctic territory sustainable and peaceful for both the global community and earth. Thus, this paper will
explore the potential of molding a more unified approach to Arctic governance and geopolitics and how it may
provide the very solution that an evolving Arctic terrain demands.
NEW GATEWAY TO THE ARCTIC
With the help of various environmental publications in the past decade, the extent of climate change
can now be definitively delineated. Arctic ice thickness has declined by 40% since the 1960s and experts
calculate that the Arctic can be free of ice by 2040 if the current rate of warming persists (NRDC). As the polar
icecap melts at a rate of 9% every decade, the guaranteed physical transformation of the Arctic has called the
attention of the global community, especially those in pursuit of resource extraction and commercial trading
routes. Growing access to the territory has revealed the now-attainable possibility of exploiting its wealth of
natural resources, particularly 30% of the worlds undiscovered gas and 13% of the worlds undiscovered oil
possibly tucked within the receding ice sheet [Bird et al., 2008]. In 2008, oil prices peaked at a record high of
$147 per barrel (Exner-Pirot, 2012). As oil prices continue to rise, the circumpolar region will become an
important hub for oil and natural gas production, considering drilling in the Arctic, which was once
inaccessible and expensive, is steadily growing more profitable.

Opening sea-trading passages formerly blocked by ice, increased warming continues to deliver more
opportunities stemming from increased mobility. This is of particular interest to the trading giants of Asia who
are keen to capitalize on new shipping routes, some of which would allow shipping times from Asia to Europe
to be expedited by days (Runnalls, 2014). As large exporters of commercial goods, Asian states, particularly
China, will likely want to diversify their shipping options (Exner-Pirot, 2012). This is expected to divert more
human activity towards the Arctic Circle but equally significant is how the surge in foreign interest has
simultaneously exposed the lack of an efficient governance framework in the Arctic.
FRICTION IN DISCOURSE
On September 19, 1996, the Declaration on the Establishment of the Arctic Council was signed with
the directive to promote cooperation, coordination and interaction among the Arctic statesin particular on
issues of sustainable development and environmental protection (Fabbi, 2012). Since then, the Arctic Council
has been the primary international governing body charged with overseeing Arctic affairs, comprised of eight
member states: Canada, Russia, Denmark, the United States, Sweden, Iceland, Norway, and Finland (ExnerPirot, 2012). It has helped mediate Western-Russian relations following the Cold War, in addition to
spearheading research efforts assessing the impact of climate on the terrain (Pirot, 2012). Initially formed to
address critical environmental issues through Arctic research, the councils responsibilities have expanded to
encompass resource governance, business development, and sustainable development (Runnalls, 2014). This
entails making climate assessments, researching recommendations, and developing implementation plans.
However, its limited mandate means its focus has always lied outside of implementing or enforcing regulatory
decrees to actually protect the environment, resulting in a somewhat "incomplete and fragmented political
infrastructure (Arctic Portal, n.d.). In other words, regardless of the comprehensive materials designed to guide
countries towards advisable behavior, the Arctic Council cannot ensure their recommendations are being
followed at a national or international level. Even the Declaration that established the Arctic Council explicitly
stated it should not deal with matters related to military security (Charron, 2014).
Thus, the need for an Arctic Council with greater authority to compel states to take action has been
recognized. If a protocol for implementation, monitoring, and reporting is developed, it may finally facilitate a
more tangible and complete response to the forthcoming challenges and give the Arctic Council the clout it
desires. Future steps toward reforming the Council to be better equipped for responding to contemporary
challenges can include broadening the scope of its mandate to encompass matters other than solely the
environment so that it may produce recommendations that take into account all the political, economic, and
cultural factors relevant to the discourse.
The Arctic Council is only one among the many players that constitute the complex, multilateral
governance arrangement focused on the Arctic. In 2013, believing the Arctic Council to be inadequate,
Icelands President lafur Ragnar Grmsson launched a new forum called the Arctic Circle, which includes
all and any entities interested in Arctic matters (Bennett, 2013). Unlike the Arctic Council, the Arctic Circle is
advertised to be a more informal and inclusive business; it is also a non-profit organization. It opens up the
forum to Asian states who will have more of a say in discussing polar affairs than they would in the Arctic
Circle. The purpose of a new arctic forum, says Grimsson, is to diversify the policymaking process by
incorporating as many international participants as possible, including government officials, scientists,
activists, and indigenous people. This reflects growing input from non-Arctic entities seeking to explore
resource extraction and newly opened passageways as the Arctic terrain continues to evolve. It also opens up
the possibility of an institutional rivalry with the existing Arctic intergovernmental body.