“Transformations underway in global politics are mirrored and concentrated in the Arctic. For circumpolar countries, the security implications of international competition in the North are profound. KCIS 2022 proposes to explore these implications.”

Executive Summary

Conference participants were challenged by Dr. Stéfanie von Hlatky[i] and Brigadier General (BG) Janeen Birckhead[ii] to imagine a secure and sustainable North in a time of renewed great power competition. The Arctic offered not just the challenge of increasing tensions but the opportunity to learn from the past to strike a better balance across the breadth and depth of security,[iii] with BG Birckhead suggesting a focus on human and environmental security. “Can we defy the patterns of history” she asked, to create an Arctic that would remain a “zone of peace”[iv] rather than one of conflict?

This notion of striking a balance would dominate the themes of the conference, from the academic perspective of focusing on the appropriate levels of analysis,[v] to practical concerns of economic growth and environmental protection inherent to sustainable development, balancing the cost of building defence infrastructure over a huge area to the benefit of its small population centres, and the dilemma of investing in niche military capabilities that could pull resources from elsewhere. These tensions were examined through six distinguished panels held and four keynote addresses delivered over two days of conference proceedings.

Panel 1: International Security Challenges in the North looked at how renewed strategic competition is changing how the Arctic as a region fits into the greater global security context. Panelists Drs. Will Greaves (University of Victoria), Michele Devlin (US Army War College), and James Morton (University of Alaska – Fairbanks) explored how international drivers like climate change were reaching down through the levels of analysis to affect the human security of Northerners. Despite these security challenges, Northerners were being presented with new economic development opportunities to seize and a chance to build the infrastructure that has largely alluded their communities.

Panel 2: The Great Powers in the High North focused on these actors were driving relations in and across the Arctic. Dr. Kathryn Friedman and Lori Leffler (Ted Stevens Center for Arctic Security), Camilla Tenna Nørup Sorensen (Forsvaret), and Dr. Gaëlle Rivard Piché (CANOFCOM) looked at how Russia’s renewed invasion of Ukraine had “paused” the Arctic Council and brought NATO and NORAD to the forefront of discussions surrounding the stability of the region. If the previous panel had highlighted climate change as a driver, this panel noted the effect technological advancement was having on the Arctic.

Panel 3: Defence Capabilities in North America and the Arctic expanded upon the modernization of NORAD. Dr. Andrea Charron (University of Manitoba), Dr. Joseph Corriveau (USACE Cold Regions Research Engineering Lab), RCN Captain Jacob French (JTFN), and Colonel J.P. Clark (G3 Arctic Game Project/US Army War College) focused their discussions at the intersection of climate change and technological development, noting how melting permafrost was presenting a challenge to new defence infrastructure whilst the cold imposed significant costs on generating forces to operate in the region. The speakers emphasized that hard decisions had to be made about what was really needed, and how best to address acute threats.

Panel 4: Diplomacy and International Cooperation focused largely on transnational indigenous diplomacy cross the Arctic and the integration of “high politics” of defence and diplomacy with the economic development of Northerners. Dr. Rauna Kuokkanen (University of Lapland), Dr. Leah Sarson (Dalhousie University), Madeleine Redfern (Arctic360), and Dr. Mark Riley (DRDC) examined how new “track 2” diplomacies could lead to better renewable energy and telecommunications across the North, such as civilian harnessing of new defence infrastructure in support of NORAD modernization to help offset the large costs of building in the region. By enhancing relationships with indigenous communities across the North, greater political certainty will attract the necessary capital to also help fuel these infrastructure projects.

Panel 5: Joint Security Cooperation comprising Dr. Njord Wegge (Forsvaret) and Dr. Leon Strauss (Marine Corps Command and Staff College), Majors Michael Tovo and Devin Kirkwood (US Naval Postgraduate School) tackled joint security and civil/military cooperation across the Arctic. This included a return to examining how NATO’s Northern Flank could be defended by US Marine Corps expeditionary forces, the technical challenges of training and operating Special Operations Forces (SOF) in the European Arctic and recognizing how essential airlift is to support these and other military and scientific operations across the circumpolar world. It was recognized by the panelists how conducting military training in the North American Arctic put pressure on strained community infrastructure and that establishing and maintaining relationships with these indigenous communities were essential to success.

Panel 6: Strategies for the Future had Dr. Thomas Hughes (University of Manitoba), Professor Gunhild Hoogensen Gjørv (UiT the Arctic University of Norway), and Dr. Stephanie Pezard (RAND) reflect on the policies implications flowing from the previous presentations. These panelists concluded that the Arctic states had to get signaling right (understanding other’s intentions) with the lack of institutional engagement with Russia, and that existing divides within Arctic communities are not exploited by geostrategic competition. Both are important given growing uncertainty over China’s designs for the Arctic and the region fits into that country’s plans to reshape global governance.

The interconnectedness of these topics was emphasized throughout the conference. Geopolitics and climate change was driving the need to invest in security across the region. However, this introduced the “Arctic dilemma” presented by Col. Clark: that generating specialized forces to operate in the Arctic are expensive and niche in applicability. Building anything more than a basic Arctic capacity for US land forces took away a disproportionate amount of resources that could be more broadly and pressingly applied elsewhere in the world. This cost was amplified by Dr. Larson who explained that infrastructure was two and a half times more expensive to build in the Arctic than in the South. The notion of “dual use” – building defence infrastructure to support civilian communities – was repeatedly referenced as a way to help mitigate this Arctic cost, providing a solution to creating a secured, resilient Arctic. Dr. Hughes noted that “dual use” was a form of signaling, implying that such infrastructure was a threat. Hence regional defence spending threatened to fuel international strategic competition, reintroducing the classic “security dilemma.”[vi]

Keynote addresses throughout the conference emphasized this interconnectedness. Brigadier General Derek O’Malley explained how NORAD modernization would introduce a deterrence by denial into continental defence by creating a Joint All Domain Command and Control (JADC2) capability.[vii] The communications infrastructure required offered an excellent dual-use option for connecting the North to the global digital economy. However, this raised the possibility of signaling towards a security dilemma. Major General Roch Pelletier (Commander CADTC) offered a way to mitigate this, noting that targeted, unique forces and infrastructure such as the Canadian Rangers, the CAFATC, and Arctic Response Company Groups were demonstrating innovative ways to meet the challenges of Arctic security. Lastly, Goldy Hyder[viii] noted the tensions between domestic wants of creating a green energy economy and international needs for oil and liquefied natural gas. Can we strike the right balance? As head of the Business Council of Canada, he led off the conference with a frank review of the big power economic and resource competition in the arctic, and the need for Canadian business, government and indigenous leadership in the north to collaborate fully on in situ economic development in the arctic that was the right mix of sustainability, profitability, and sovereign presence.

The final keynote was provided by Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS) General Wayne Eyre. He noted that the current rules-based international order was more fragile than ever and was going to get more volatile. Maintaining a stable and secure Arctic is thus a vital component in supporting this stress international architecture. However, the region was under pressure from polarizing politics and the pronounced climate change that “looms overall.” General Eyre noted many of the challenges presented during the previous two days, such as the large expanse and lack of population and infrastructure that characterize the Canadian Arctic, and the unique challenges of building and operating in the cold there. He was particularly concerned about threats passing “through”[ix] the Arctic, stating that NORAD modernization was an important step to meeting these threats but would not alone get Canada to where it needs to be to create a secure, sustainable, and resilient Arctic in a time of great power competition.

Ryan Dean recently received his PhD in Political Science at the University of Calgary. Ryan’s research focuses on Canadian Arctic polices, including issues of sovereignty, defence and governance. His dissertation examines the how societal actors have influenced the formulation of Canadian Arctic security policy since 1985. 

Before starting his PhD, Ryan worked as a policy analyst at the Walter and Duncan Gordon Foundation on their Munk-Gordon Arctic Security Program in Toronto. Ryan received his MA in Political Studies from Queen’s University and his BA (Hons) in Political Science (International Relations) from Carleton University.

End Notes:

[i] Queen’s University, Director of the Queen’s Centre for International and Defence Policy (CIDP).

[ii] Deputy Commandant, United States Army War College (USAWC).

[iii] See Keith Krause and Michael Williams, “Broadening the Agenda of Security Studies: Politics and Methods,” Mershon International Studies Review 40, no. 2 (1996): 229-54.

[iv] This alludes to Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev’s 1987 “Murmansk Initiative” opening the door to establishing multilateral cooperation across the circumpolar North. See Mikhail Sergeevich Gorbachev, “Gorbachev's Murmansk speech: the Soviet initiative and western response,” Norwegian Atlantic Committee, 1989.

[v] See David J. Singer, “The level-of-analysis problem in international relations,” World Politics 14, no. 1 (1961): 77-92.

[vi] John H. Hertz, “Idealist internationalism and the security dilemma,” World Politics 2, no. 2 (1950): 157-180.

[vii] For more on this topic, see Teeple, Nancy and Ryan Dean (eds), SHIELDING NORTH AMERICA Canada’s Role in NORAD Modernization (Peterborough, ON: North American and Arctic Defence and Security Network, 2021). https://www.naadsn.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/NAADSN-engage4-NORAD-NT-RD-upload.pdf.

[viii] President and CEO of the Business Council of Canada. See www.thebusinesscouncil.ca/.

[ix] P. Whitney Lackenbauer, “Threats Through, To, and In the Arctic: A Framework for Analysis,” NAADSN Policy Brief (23 March 2021) at https://www.naadsn.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Lackenbauer_Threats-Through-To-and-In-the-Arctic.pdf.