Strife

The Academic Blog of the Department of War Studies, King's College London

You are here: Home / Archives for Andro Mathewson

Andro Mathewson

Strife Series: Arctic Maritime Security – Climate and the Securitisation of the Arctic

by

A Russian icebreaker in the Arctic. Source: NASA, Public Domain.

The intersection of drastic climate change and the increasing securitisation of the Arctic is an issue policymakers and scientists cannot afford to ignore. With rising tensions between Russia and the West and prolonged disputes between the various eight Arctic States, Arctic conflict is increasingly a possibility despite the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)—the broad legal framework governing our oceans, including the Arctic, the work of the Arctic Council—and a general history of cooperation in the region. An increased likelihood of conflict is a direct result of increased securitisation of the rapidly changing, warming region that has historically remained excluded from global conflicts. Resolving this securitisation will require concerted cooperation between many states with competing interests across several issues, including territorial claims, climate change, and natural resource extraction.

Much of the geopolitical tension across the Arctic plays out in the maritime domain and is exacerbated by climate change. Because the region is easier to access due to melting sea ice and technological developments, arctic states are deploying more naval vessels for exploration, scientific studies, and defence posturing. Melting sea ice and increased accessibility can rekindle dormant territorial claims, or spark new ones, as new islands are uncovered and borders shift.

Future maritime skirmishes are likely to be limited to security incidents over local territorial claims, which could be initiated by climate change and technological advancements, which may lead to larger conflicts in the region. Despite the currently peaceful and passive nature of the contested territorial claims in the region, the combination of increased securitisation interwoven and climate change might collapse this fragile Arctic peace.

The Changing Arctic

The Arctic has been disproportionately affected by climate change and the region continues to warm over twice as fast as the rest of the world. From a maritime perspective, the most influential changes lie in the rapid decline of sea ice thickness, area covered, and age over the last few decades–determining factors. Recent studies suggest that there is a 60% probability that the Arctic Ocean will be ice-free by the 2030s, which are only reinforced after disappointment in the lacklustre commitments and outcomes at the UN COP26 climate conference in Glasgow. Less sea ice and more open water not only impacts the Arctic’s important function in regulating global climate patterns but also redefines the boundaries of geopolitics: especially transportation.

It is now easier than ever to access the Arctic shipping routes like the Northwest Passage through Canada and the Northern Sea Route, sometimes called the Northeast Passage, along the Russian coast, leading to an increased economic interest in the region. The effects of anthropogenic global warming and the ramifications of an ice-free summer in the Arctic are evident: In 2017, a Russian tanker carrying liquified natural gas from Norway to Korea traversed the Northern Sea Route through the Arctic without an ice breaker escort for the first time ever. As shipping companies increasingly look to the Arctic instead of traditional maritime routes, the increase of marine traffic may increase both tensions between Arctic states due to maritime border disputes and the propensity for maritime incidents between vessels.

The geophysical transformation of the Arctic represents an opportunity for a departure from the traditional state-centric view of international security. As the ice melts, the map of the Arctic is literally redrawn. With access to new natural resources caches and shipping routes, Arctic states are prioritising their sovereignty and territorial integrity across the region, securitising the region.

Maritime Securitisation of the Arctic

The liminal nature of ice complicates the permanence that underpins modern concepts of sovereignty.  Not only can borders within the Arctic change between decades due to the ice melt, but it also complicates subsea mapping, which is central to UNCLOS determinations. New islands are continuously found in the Arctic, previously covered by ice. This has given rise to cartopolitics to expand sovereignty claims. Some attempts have led to disputes between several Arctic states, such as the Danish claim over the Lomonosov Ridge, over which Russia and Canada also claim sovereignty. Nevertheless, despite the non-ratification of the treaty by the U.S., UNCLOS has provided the Arctic states with a successful framework from which to peacefully resolve disputes. Besides UNCLOS, the remaining portion of Arctic governance is routed primarily through bilateral agreements and the Arctic Council. However, the council focuses primarily on developmental and environmental issues. It has also been criticized due to its “weak institutional structure, soft law status and ad hoc funding system.” Fundamentally, the Arctic lacks a comprehensive legal regime analogous to that of the Antarctic Treaty.

Before melting ice began changing the geography of the Arctic, there were already tensions between many nations present in the region. Canada and the U.S.  have prolonged disputes over both the status of the Northwest Passage and the Beaufort Sea. Canada, Denmark, and Russia have clashing continental shelf claims over the Lomonosov Ridge, an underwater mountain chain intersection in the Arctic basin. These prolonged disputes are reemerging as heightened security issues due to the rapidly changing Arctic.

Despite the cold nature of Arctic competition, its warming is exacerbating tensions, which could eventually lead to open conflict over conflicting territorial claims. The increased uncertainty has led to the securitisation of both climate change and the region. U.S. President Biden has stated that “climate considerations shall be an essential element of United States foreign policy and national security.” His administration also recently appointed a slew of regional experts to “advance U.S. national security and economic security interests in the Arctic to keep the region secure and stable.” Despite its status as a non-Arctic state, China’s Arctic Policy directly links maritime navigational security and climate change together as key security concerns in Arctic affairs. Russia has also expanded its military footprint in the region to protect its northern reaches, despite general (public-facing) indifference from its leaders to the dangers of climate change.

Increased military presence in the region is following the rhetorical securitization, led by the maritime assets of Arctic and non-Arctic states alike: The U.S. Coast Guard is taking steps to address key challenges in the region, and expanding its fleet of icebreakers. Russia has upgraded the administrative status of its Northern Fleet for the second time in less than a decade. China is building a new heavy icebreaker and lift vessel for the Arctic, and the Canadian Coast Guard and British Royal Navy have signed a new agreement with Arctic cooperation. The increased number of naval vessels, in an area twelve times smaller than the Pacific Ocean, with at least as many competing interests, could easily lead to maritime incidents between naval forces.

Moving Forward

Climate change-induced transformation of the Arctic has increasingly led to its securitisation by numerous Arctic and non-Arctic states. The result is the increased presence of maritime assets in the region, which raises the propensity for Arctic conflict, and require concerted cooperation between states to manage. The rising tensions in the Arctic highlight the increasingly prominent intersection of climate change and geopolitics. While there is a need for global cooperation and continued information sharing between states, their militaries, and international organisations to reduce the likelihood of conflict in the region, the extensive problem of climate change and its contributory role in conflict remains unsolved. Comprehensive national security strategy should not only prepare for a ‘world on fire’, but also proactively work to reduce anthropogenic climate contributions to avoid conflict in the Arctic and beyond.

Invisible in War: An Insight on Conflict and the Conservation of Wildlife

by

by Andro Mathewson

Elephants in Ban Me Thuot during the Vietnam War, 1964 (Image credit: Flickr)

The multi-layered consequences of human conflict often overlook animal suffering. Studies tend to focus on the human toll of conflict and the scourge of war, often concentrating on the loss of human life or the devastation brought by conflict upon the economies of warring states. To quote Sir David Attenborough, ‘All life is related’, and as with other global issues such as climate change and urbanisation, human action has a significant impact on wildlife. Throughout the history of warfare, animals have often suffered to the same extent as humans – from war horses in Ancient Eurasia to their involvement in the Second World War; carrier pigeons from the time of Cyrus of Persia to their use by ISIS in the Levant; dogs from the Iron Age Kingdom of Lydia to their modern deployments across the world. The role of domesticated animals in warfare has been thoroughly researched but less work and no general consensus exists on the While there are few cases where conflicts or human tragedy have relaxed environmental pressures, known as the ‘refuge effect’ – such as Chernobyl’s Exclusion Zone and the DMZ between North and South Korea– the overall general trend shows that warfare is largely harmful to wild flora and fauna. From Cheetah cubs in the Horn of Africa to Kashmiri stags, endangered animals are suffering from human conflicts, climate change, and the rise in illegal wildlife trading, all of which continue to contribute heavily to the decline in animal populations across the world.

Armed conflicts severely increase the level of poaching and unlawful wildlife trading of endangered species. Wild animals find themselves in the crossfire of military engagements for many reasons. As many modern conflicts are fought in extremely biodiverse states or border regions, the latter commonly found along natural borders such as rivers or mountain ranges, the propensity for humans and animals to intersect in these areas surges.

Over the past half-century, more than eighty per cent of armed conflicts overlapped with biodiversity hotspots – within these conflict zones, the effect on wildlife stems from direct or indirect causes. Understanding these effects should be a priority to scholars working in the nexus of conflict and animal conservation. The majority of direct effects originate from the use of artillery and ordnance, hunting for consumption, and poaching for trade to finance military groups. Perhaps the most prominent example of the ecological effects of warfare is that of the use of dioxin-contaminated Agent Orange by the United States in Vietnam which has left contaminated soil and tainted water in this region to this day. During the same conflict, the U.S. Air Force frequently targeted and strafed elephants as they were used by members of the Viet Cong to transport equipment and munitions. Another more recent example, which also includes elephants, is the hunting of the species for their ivory to sponsor al Qaeda’s affiliate in East Africa Al-Shabaab. According to an investigation sponsored by the Elephant Action League, the terrorist group generated more than $200,000 a month from the sale of Elephant tusks.

On the other hand, the indirect effects of human conflict on wildlife transpire due to the weakening of institutions and the disruption of animal conservation work. During armed conflicts, domestic and international institutions naturally prioritize restoring order, thus deprioritizing the protection of wildlife in the region. Accordingly, conservation groups tend to withdraw from regions under conflict to protect their assets and ensure the safety of their workers. These indirect effects are particularly prevalent in some regions in Africa where national parks and their rangers are threatened by militants. For example, the ongoing insurgency in the north of Burkina Faso has created an extremely volatile situation in one of Africa’s most biodiverse regions. The country’s national parks and wildlife reserves became conflict zones where park rangers faced an increase in lion poaching for profit and insurgent groups hunting for bushmeat. Another similar case is the Congo’s Okapi Reserve in the DRC where elephant and bushmeat poaching grew substantially during the civil war at the turn of the century as fewer park rangers were available – many park rangers were engaged in the fighting, while others returned home to protect their families.

Overall, the available literature suggests that human conflict does have a  significant effect on animal populations and conservation efforts, something that is frequently overlooked. To assist conservation efforts, a detailed large-scale evaluation of war’s effects on wildlife would be indispensable to assist decision-makers in their efforts to theorize, predict, and act when conflicts arise. Such research will not only help those working at the nexus of conservation and conflict to develop effective and efficient practical mitigation tactics, but also those working in the field such as park rangers and veterinarians to prepare for conflicts where tensions are high and conflict is likely to occur. Bridging this gap between academic research and policy-makers is essential to support the conservation of our planet’s wildlife. Despite the bleak outlook, some excellent work has already been done. for example, the collaboration between WWF and ACAMS  to raise awareness about the Illegal Wildlife Trade and to develop training to combat it; another example is the Virunga National Park’s rangers success in protecting gorillas despite the ongoing conflict in the DRC. The willingness of park rangers to continue to work despite the imminent danger, as well as continued funding of the project have been cited as reasons for its ongoing success. However, future research is crucial for conservation efforts in war-torn regions. From top-level government officials to those on the ground protecting animals, a renewed focus on this issue would ensure that the harsh effects of human conflict on wildlife are both mitigated and minimized.

Andro Mathewson is an International Relations MSc student at the University of Edinburgh. He is interested in international security, sanction regimes, military history and technologies, open-source investigations, and conservation. Andro has previously contributed to The Bulletin Of Atomic Sciences and The Texas National Security Review. Prior to his current studies, he was a Research Fellow at Perry World House at the University of Pennsylvania. Find him on Twitter @Andro_Mathewson.