The Arctic has received ever growing attention in the international discourse because of climate change; resource utilisation; ideas on new shipping routes brought about by the melting Arctic ice, and environmental threats. Valur Ingimundarson, Professor of History, is very interested in this new state of affairs. He is currently researching the development of politics, international management and security in the Arctic, with a special emphasis on Icelandic policy. Ingimundarson says that the changed geopolitical position of Iceland after the Cold War and the departure of the US Military sparked the study.
Ingimundarson speculates that political discussion on the international scene is often characterised by misinterpretations – not least in the media. He gives as examples exaggerated ideas on “anarchy” and the looming race for resources in the North and the abundant economic opportunities following the opening of new shipping routes. “It is often left out of this equation that the Arctic Ocean will still be covered with ice for a large part of the year despite climate change.”
Ingimundarson is a specialist in international and modern history and has mostly focused on international communication and security. A few years back he led a group of specialists who evaluated risks that might be faced by Iceland in the immediate future for the Icelandic government.
In connection with the study Ingimundarson has researched communication between the countries of the Arctic and other countries considering the interests of the region with special emphasis on the tension between considerations of autonomy and international management. “Finally I studied the attempts of Iceland to be recognised as a coastal county in the Arctic. This is a new aspect to Icelandic policy based on the fact that our territorial waters reach into the Greenland Sea by the Arctic Ocean. The Icelandic government therefore claims that Iceland should be defined as a fully valid coastal state in the Arctic just like the five states who claim territorial rights in the Arctic Ocean, i.e. the USA, Canada, Russia, Norway and Denmark on behalf of Greenland.” Ingimundarson furthermore says that Iceland has a stronger position than Finland and Sweden who have no coast on the Arctic seas. On the other hand the five “coastal countries” have not wanted to accept Iceland as one of them. Ingimundarson says that this subject offers many possibilities concerning Iceland. “Recently the basis for a policy on the Arctic has been laid down here. All political parties agree that this is a priority in Icelandic foreign policy. I put this policy into the context of different international factors such as communication within the Arctic region and Iceland’s ties to various states and external parties, such as China and the European Union, and regional and international bodies such as the Arctic Council and the United Nations.”
Ingimundarson says that influential Asian states such as China, Japan, South Korea and Singapore have requested permanent audience membership of the Arctic Council, which is gaining in political importance. He says that the main question Iceland and the other countries of the region face is how accessible should the area be to other states. This may lead to increased tension between these parties and external countries who claim to have valid interests in the area. This is not only a question of identity politics where states and organisations are divided up according to their current power positions and agency where division is decided by who is in and who is out. It also revolves around the issue of who has most influence on decision-making in the Arctic area in the future,” says Ingimundarson.
