Prospects of cooperation in U.S.-Russia relations in the Arctic

The U.S. is going to chair the Arctic Council in 2015. This prospect, together with the current open confrontation in Ukraine, raises some questions concerning the future of U.S.-Russia cooperation in the Arctic. We asked Pavel Gudev, Senior Research Fellow at the Institute of World Economy and International Relations (IMEMO) of the Russian Academy of Sciences, about the agenda for the upcoming years.

In the current situation, bilateral relations between the U.S. and Russia run the risk of becoming increasingly problematic. Do you think this will affect Arctic cooperation?

In the last years, we have witnessed a deep evolution in the understanding of the Arctic issues among both American and Russian experts. We have understood that we are allies rather than enemies and that we have shared interests in the Arctic. 

At the time being, all countries are willing to cooperate in the Arctic. This willingness remains in spite of the crisis in Ukraine or in any other sphere. The Arctic has been and will be a very fruitful field of cooperation between Russia and the U.S., Norway, and Canada. I don’t think there will be any problems. I believe that what we need is to more openly discuss all the issues. In 2013, the U.S. signed the new Arctic Strategy. It refers to the American national interest all the time, but the American experts did not tell us what this national interest is. We need clarity and openness in discussing our goals.

The U.S. is going to chair the Arctic Council in 2015. Both American and Russian authorities consider Arctic cooperation as one of the most fruitful. What will the U.S. agenda be? What do you expect from the American chairmanship of the Council?

What we expect is enhanced cooperation on a number of issues. First of all, we expect to strengthen coast guard and naval cooperation. In the Arctic, there is no such possibility for military conflict. Still, we need to regulate all maritime activities, especially those conducted by non-Arctic states like China or South Korea. All activities, from fisheries to scientific research, must be conducted in accordance with the law.  To ensure this, we need to enhance cooperation between the coast guards. When the Canadian Minister Stephen Harper states that they are strengthening their navy or their coast guards, this does not mean that we are witnessing an arm race in the Arctic. It just shows the tendency to regulate unregulated activities[1]. Also, enhanced coast guard cooperation with the U.S. and with the other Arctic states will help in tackling the new threats of the globalized world. Security concerns such as terrorism, piracy, and drug and human trafficking are shared by both Russia and the U.S.  Tackling these challenges effectively is in everyone’s interest.

Another pivotal issue for Russian-U.S. cooperation is the conclusion of a new framework for fishery regulation in the Central Arctic Ocean. These waters are not regulated because they are covered with ice for the most part of the year. With the prospect of a reduction in ice cover, it is important to create a regime to prevent illegal fisheries. Even more, this should be done as soon as possible, before problems arise and cooperation becomes more difficult. The U.S. is pushing for this fishery regulation and I think this is a good initiative, especially for the Arctic Five. Fish are a transboundary resource and such a regulation would prevent unregulated fishing in the high seas, with all of its economic and environmental consequences. We don not intend to create a legal regime that deliberately excludes non-Arctic states. Nonetheless, these countries should play according to the rules established by the Arctic Five or by the Arctic Council. In this regard, the fact that the Artic Council is transforming from a forum into an international organization is a very good tendency.

Last but not least, we are willing to discuss our position concerning the Baker-Shevardnadze agreement. With the negotiation of this agreement, Russia lost a large portion of the Bering Sea, and with it, its fishing stocks. Russia is now willing to change its negative attitude towards this agreement. We can start U.S.-Russia negotiations and make concessions, provided that the U.S. will offer something in exchange, for example, fishing quotas.

Do you think that Finland, Sweden, and Norway may form their own Scandinavian policy on the Northern Sea Route (NSR) as opposed to Russia? Do you think Washington will strengthen interactions with the Scandinavian countries on the issue of the internationalization of the NSR?

In 2012 the Russian Federation adopted a new federal law on amendments to specific legislative acts related to the regulation of merchant shipping in the water area of the NSR. This was followed in January 2013 by the New Rules of Navigation in the NSR water area. Under the law of the Russian Federation, the NSR is a national maritime route. As far as international law is concerned, Article 234 of the Convention on the law of the Sea (UNCLOS) authorizes the coastal states to regulate the ice-covered areas within their EEZs. It follows that Russia has both a national and an international legal basis to regulate navigation in the NSR. Therefore, any claim for the internationalization of the NSR is not consistent.

Moreover, it is important to stress that security threats have changed in the last years and we need to control and regulate this route. The regional level of governance will be the most effective to efficiently regulate the route. The regimes established in the Baltic Sea and in the Mediterranean Sea prove it. We can think of a consortium with the Arctic Five or with the Arctic Eight to develop infrastructures. To be sure, a framework for the NSR is needed and all stakeholders will be involved in the process of defining a legal basis for navigation. At this point, internationalization is not an option. Both national legislation and international law stand on our side on this statement.

Patriarch Kirill has recently stressed the importance of the role of Northern people in the Arctic. How do you assess the role of indigenous people in Arctic cooperation?

Indigenous people are a very important part of the Arctic policy for all the Arctic states because they are entitled to historic rights. International law provides a framework for these rights and the Arctic states are committed to give indigenous people a say. This being said, we should not confuse this precise legal concept with the claim of those countries that push for expanding their role in the Arctic without a legal basis for that.

Interviewer: Eleonora Milazzo, RIAC blogger