Arctic Silk Route
One of the planet earth’s least populated and coldest regions, the Arctic is emerging as a zone of significant economic and strategic interest and, consequently, geopolitical competition. At the same time, environmental concerns have also placed the Arctic in the spotlight. Global warming and melting ice are the most significant issues affecting the Arctic. While climate change is causing an environmental disaster, melting ice makes these routes navigable and provides shorter distances for intercontinental shipping.
In the last few years, collaboration between China and Russia has intensified to create a polar route, running along the Russian northern coast via the Northern Sea route (NSR) and through the Arctic. This new route promises to reduce voyage time and distance between Asia and Europe by up to an estimated 40 percent, compared to traditional routes through the Suez Canal or the Panama Canal.
China has invested substantial resources in developing the next generation of heavy-duty icebreakers for research. China has also been beefing up its Arctic-capable vessels. The US Naval Institute has raised concerns about these developments. It sees this as “a clear signal” that Beijing is serious about pursuing its great power ambitions commercially, scientifically, and militarily in the polar regions. Within US strategic circles, China’s “Polar Silk Road” is seen as an exercise in geopolitical positioning. According to the Chinese, cooperation between China and Russia on the Polar Route is an “innovative” and “modernising” initiative to boost trade and regional economies.
The Arctic, in contrast to Antarctica, is not legally recognised as a “global common”. The Arctic is not regulated by any single overarching treaty like the Antarctic Treaty. However, provisions of international law are applicable in addition to agreements between the eight Arctic States, collectively known as “the Arctic Council” which includes Russia and the US as members, while China is a non-Arctic observer state. The Antarctic Treaty designates the continent as a “scientific preserve” and bans military activity. For the Arctic, there are no such legal prohibitions, yet. The Arctic is governed by the principle of state sovereignty, with overlapping exclusive economic zones (EEZs).
The US Geological Survey estimates that the Arctic holds the world’s largest untapped petroleum potential, with roughly 90 billion barrels of unexploited oil and 1,670 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Minerals available in the Arctic include manganese, copper, cobalt, zinc, and gold. Beyond its resource wealth, the Arctic’s newly navigable waters present enormous economic potential through shorter shipping routes. The US, itself an Arctic nation via Alaska, has claims on offshore oil and gas. But it has been comparatively slower in developing Arctic infrastructure and icebreaking capabilities.
China announced its Arctic policy back in 2018. The primary goal of the policy is to connect the “Polar Silk Road” initiative with the broader trade and commercial objectives of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). For China, adherence to international legal frameworks and environmental norms and concerns remains central to its policy.
On the other hand, the US Department of Defence’s “2024 Arctic Strategy” recognises the need for this new strategic approach to the Arctic. It aims to bolster American security and influence in the rapidly changing Arctic region. It prioritises deepening engagement with allies and enhancing preparedness to counter emerging threats.
Perhaps the most contentious issue surrounding the Arctic Silk Route is its environmental impact. Environmental scientists believe that temperatures in the Arctic are rising four times faster than the Earth’s overall average. The new sea lanes going through it could potentially threaten its most fragile ecosystem. Both environmental organizations and Arctic nations have been advocating a ban on heavy industrial operations in ecologically sensitive areas, along with stringent enforcement of maritime emissions regulations.
While the Arctic Silk Route offers speed and savings, it may not yet replace the established trade arteries like the Panama Canal or Suez Canal for several reasons, such as seasonal accessibility, lack of infrastructure, including deep water ports and refuelling stations, and the dangerous navigation etc. Sceptics feel that while the route may serve as a complementary course, especially for high-value or time-sensitive cargo, it is unlikely to fully replace the traditional routes in the near future.
For China and Russia, the Arctic Silk Route represents a crucial frontier for global trade. It also provides a unique theatre to demonstrate their edge in the new category of icebreaker vessels, which are capable of operating throughout the year, using green fuels and leaving no carbon footprints. This is also a challenge to the West-dominated infrastructure by a rising China and a resurgent Russia. Ultimately, the development of this route into a major maritime corridor and a globally important area for offshore exploration will be primarily driven by market forces, technology, and funding, always bearing foremost in mind the environmental fragility of the ice-capped Arctic.
