The Future History of the Arctic by Charles Emmerson

Book Review by Max Meizlish

THE IDEA OF AN UNCHANGING ARCTIC A PLACE ON EARTH WITHOUT HISTORY, WHERE THINGS
HAVE ALWAYS BEEN AS THEY ARE NOW IS CATEGORICALLY WRONG. CHARLES EMMERSON
Charles Emmerson became fascinated with the Arctic at a very young age. Since first
reading about the polar region in the August 1978 edition of National Geographic magazine, the
resource security and foreign policy expert has emerged as one of the most formative thought
leaders regarding Arctic energy and environmental security. Consequently, his comprehensive
review of the region The Future History of the Arctic not only elevates the Norths image
beyond that of a seemingly uninhabitable, yet pristine and quasi-mystical part of the world, but
also challenges readers to gain a more nuanced appreciation for the Arctics vast history and
burgeoning geopolitical significance.
Separating The Future History of the Arctic into five sections visions, power, nature,
riches, and freedom Emmerson seeks to counter the perception held by many that the Arctic
of today exists just as they may have thought it did in generations past remote, lifeless, and
undoubtedly insignificant. In his own view, the region has been in a constant state of flux for
generations reflecting the shifting geopolitical realities surrounding Arctic energy and
environmental security. It follows, therefore, that Emmerson believes [g]rasping the history of
the Arctic is a precondition to understanding the motivations, hopes, fears, and ambitions of
those who will shape its future.1
In setting the stage for understanding the complexity of Arctic geopolitics, Emmerson details the
varying degrees by which the national identities of countries such as Russia, Canada, Norway,
Greenland, Iceland, Finland, Sweden and the United States have become linked, either explicitly
or implicitly, to the Arctic. Whereas Americans oftentimes perceive the Alaskan Arctic as an
afterthought associated principally with energy and polar bears, many in Russia, Canada, and
Norway see the Arctic as a repository of national powera symbol of distinctiveness[and]
a source of future wealth and claim to historical greatness.2 For the people of Iceland and
Greenland, though, the Arctic is simply what is all around.3
Although thorough in his analysis of each countrys historical links to the Arctic, Emmersons
most thought provoking and relevant section to todays geopolitical conversations concerns
Russias Arctic identity. Demonstrating how the former Soviet vision for Arctic dominance
permeates into Russias current geopolitical calculations, Emmerson asserts that Russias activity
in the Arctic embodies Joseph Stalins vision for a comprehensive and, above all, planned
Soviet Arctic.4 Following this vision, Russian President Vladimir Putin led the charge to
revitalize Russian activity in the region after a period of economic crisis in the 1990s resulted in
temporarily stagnated Arctic development. According to Emmerson, Putins revitalization of the
Russian Arctic [c]onsciously tak[es] up where the Soviet Union had left off. 5 This renewed
interest in Arctic development is rooted not only in Russian nationalist sentiment, but also the
general desire to capitalize on newly accessible natural resource reserves and emerging maritime
1 Charles Emmerson, The Future History of the Arctic, xvi
2 Emmerson, xvii
3 Ibid.
4 Emmerson, 32
5 Emmerson, 55

shipping channels. For energy-poor countries such as Japan, China, and South Korea, new
shipping channels will offer alternatives to importing energy sources through the politically
unstable and often dangerous chokepoints of the Suez Canal, Panama Canal, and Strait of
Malacca.
Following the oil shocks of the 1970s, international oil companies largely supporting the
energy strategies of major economic powers such as Canada, Russia, and the United States
began to solidify the Arctics position as a soon-to-be hub for energy extraction and maritime
transportation. Consequently, Arctic nations and members of the international community have
increasingly sought to develop the regions overall infrastructure and map its vast mineral
resources. However, some countries may not be adequately prepared to handle the influx of
foreign investment in Arctic infrastructure. According to Emmerson, many in Greenland fear
that [the] political system will be swamped by the scale of investment, that its government will
be taken over by special interests, that the country will replace dependence on Denmark with
dependence on multinational corporations, and that Greenlands cultural traditions will be lost in
the headlong rush for economic self-sufficiency.6
Such uncertainty extends to a number of countries, particularly concerning their ability to keep
pace with the rate at which their neighbors build up conventional military forces in the region.
Although Emmerson believes the potential for armed conflict in the Arctic remains low, he does
demonstrate a clear shift in military posture on the part of nearly every Arctic nation. In response
to increased Russian fighter jet activity near Norwegian air space, for instance, Norway
continues to upgrade its military capabilities. It has also made every attempt to increase
allocation of NATO resources in the Arctic. Such calls for raising the Arctics security profile
have resulted in not only additional Arctic training and simulation exercises, but also calls for an
increased American military presence in the region. Whereas Russia is currently engaged in
establishing thirteen new airfields and conducting long-range air patrols off the coast of Alaska,
the United States appears grossly underprepared to tackle an environment that could experience
ice-free summers sometime in the 2020s.
Nevertheless, the Arctic Council an intergovernmental forum aimed at addressing
issues challenging both the Arctic governments and their indigenous populations has succeeded
in fostering cooperation amongst the competing countries. The Arctic Search and Rescue
Agreement of 2011, for instance, commits member nations to providing search and rescue
support to any maritime vessels requesting assistance in the region. Likewise, it requires a great
deal of information sharing between member nations. When considering the hostile relationships
between Arctic nations such as the United States and Russia in other forums, such multilateral
cooperation should be seen as nothing less than a major accomplishment.
Home to increasing political competition and environmental change, the Arctic is and
will continue to emerge as one of the most important regions in the world a hub for
international debate regarding the impact of global climate change and the means by which
countries can cooperate to mitigate some of its most troubling consequences. Ironically,
Emmersons The Future History of the Arctic does not attempt to provide the reader with a
calculated assessment of how these debates will be framed or who will lead them. So too, he
does not predict how the status quo may escalate, if it does at all. However, considering the
degree to which the Arctic is in flux changing by the day in relation to a growing number of
human and environmental factors who would blame him?
6 Emmerson, 288