Arctic geopoetics: Russian politics at the North Pole
| Date | 01 December 2019 |
| Published date | 01 December 2019 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0010836718815526 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
815526CAC0010.1177/0010836718815526Cooperation and ConflictHansen-Magnusson
research-article2018
Article
Cooperation and Conflict
2019, Vol. 54(4) 466 –487
Arctic geopoetics: Russian
© The Author(s) 2018
Article reuse guidelines:
politics at the North Pole
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
https://doi.org/10.1177/0010836718815526
DOI: 10.1177/0010836718815526
journals.sagepub.com/home/cac
Hannes Hansen-Magnusson
Abstract
The article develops a geopoetic approach to Russian Arctic politics. It rests on the empirical
observation that due to climate change, the Arctic landscape is undergoing profound
transformations, which has led to multilateral governance efforts but also unilateral pursuits. In
this general heterogeneity, Russia’s policies have raised the most pressing questions regarding the
country’s motivations to engage in the region. Cultural approaches to global politics are most
suitable to create holistic understandings and explanations in this regard, but they lack discussing a
spatial dimension of Russian identity. By developing a geopoetic account, the article complements
this research through methodological insights from critical geography. Geopoetics focuses on the
cultural roots and their cognitive-emotional dimension, on the basis of which claims to the Arctic
and related policies resonate with a broader audience. The article argues that Russian policies
have their foundation in a utopian ideal of Soviet socialist realism that was widely popularised in
the 1920s and later decades. Applying the hermeneutic tool of topos, the article highlights that
three features stand out that interweave into a coherent imaginary of the Arctic: first, the heroic
explorer; second, the conquest of nature; and third, the role of science and technology. Analysts
would do well to bear in mind how the Arctic becomes intelligible when commenting on policies.
Keywords
Arctic, culture, geopolitics, Russia
How can we understand and explain Arctic politics? This article develops a geopoetic
approach to global politics and argues that, at least with regard to the circumpolar north,
too little attention is paid to the role of space and its role in state performances. It is impor-
tant to focus on the role of space, though, as geopolitics does not just simply happen.
Rather, geopolitics plays out in myriad ways of cultural representations in which people
make sense of their surroundings and thereby actively engage in world-making (Onuf,
1989). This practice includes their spatial understanding (Elden, 2009). The Arctic is a
particularly interesting case in this regard: not only is it the region in which the two Cold
War superpowers – Russia and the United States – have cooperated closely since the
Corresponding author:
Hannes Hansen-Magnusson, Cardiff University, School of Law & Politics, Museum Avenue, Cardiff
CF10 3AX, UK.
Email: hansen-magnusson@cardiff.ac.uk
Hansen-Magnusson
467
1990s (Nord, 2016), potentially changing the architecture of global politics, the region is
also subject to considerable transformation itself as a result of global warming.
The Arctic was once referred to as the last unmanaged frontier of humanity
(Bloomfield, 1981). But because the Arctic is the region of the world that is most severely
affected by climate change, with temperatures rising four times faster than elsewhere
(Bintanja and van der Linden, 2013), this frontier is shifting. This shift becomes tangible
through the consequences of climate change: while some species, such as the Polar Bear,
are in danger of extinction, fish hitherto unknown in these latitudes thrive in warmer
waters and replace other kinds (CAFF, 2017; Pinsky et al., 2018). The changing flora and
fauna also impacts on indigenous people’s ways of life where these are closely connected
to the ecosystem (Arctic Council, 2013b). Melting ice and warming waters also literally
impact on the geopolitical landscape of states: receding sea ice potentially opens up new
waterways along the Northwest and Northeast Passage, and subsoil gas and oil resources
become better accessible (Melia et al., 2016).
In consequence, the frontier is no longer unmanaged, and changes in the cryosphere
have produced various forms of state activities, which do not, however, seem to follow a
distinct and unified pattern. On the one hand, the current state of the art in Arctic scholar-
ship highlights the amicable cooperation in the Arctic Council, and its achievements in
fostering scientific cooperation, for instance, on the extent and effect of climate change in
the area (Bloom, 1999; Humrich, 2013; Knecht, 2017; Koivurova, 2010; Koivurova et al.,
2009; Larsen and Fondahl, 2014; Nord, 2016; Pedersen, 2012). Individually, but also in
cooperation, Arctic countries1 have invested hundreds of billions of US-dollars in infra-
structure projects that include roads, railway lines, ports, ice-breaker capacity, energy as
well as faster internet connections (Conley, 2013; Staalesen, 2016). Through the Arctic
Council, states have laid the legal foundations of cooperation on marine oil pollution and
on search and rescue missions (Arctic Council, 2011, 2013a; Wood-Donnelly, 2013). In
the Ilulissat Declaration (2008), states bordering the Arctic Ocean confirmed their com-
mitment to international law, which is generally considered to prevail in the region (Byers,
2013). Russia, Canada and Denmark have submitted applications to the United Nations
Committee on the Limits of the Continental Shelf to extend the boundaries of their respec-
tive exclusive economic zones, albeit with contradictory and overlapping claims (BBC,
2014; McKie, 2016). These activities are compliant with the procedures envisaged by the
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).
On the other hand, concerns have been raised, by both researchers and politicians,
with regard to the relationship between Russia and the other members of the Arctic
Council (Borgerson, 2008; Denmark, 2017; Huebert, 2013; Huebert et al., 2012; UK
Parliament, 2016). At times, Russia seemed to pursue the extension of its continental
shelf outside the administrative framework of UNCLOS when an expedition of subma-
rines led by Duma member and Arctic explorer Artur Chilingarov planted a flag on the
ocean floor at the North Pole in August 2007. While this move was rejected by the
Canadian foreign minister as politics from the 15th century (Parfitt, 2007), academic
commentators remain divided whether it was meant to reassert Russian identity and cre-
ate domestic legitimacy (Hønneland, 2016: 20 and 50), whether it addressed primarily a
foreign audience (Steinberg et al., 2015: 23), or whether it was an improvised action that
the Kremlin used ex post for its own geopolitical intentions (Baev, 2007: 12). Whatever
468
Cooperation and Conflict 54(4)
the true intention, during recent years there has been a considerable militarisation of the
Arctic, with more troops stationed in the area as well as newly built vessels and army
bases (Depledge, 2015; Singh, 2013). Even though much has been written about the
uncertainty of resources actually existing (Keil, 2014), let alone being accessible for
commercial exploitation (Atlantic Council, 2017; Baev, 2017), a potential rush for
resources, combined with a claim to territory, seem to confirm Realist predictions that
the Arctic has turned into a region in which national security is at stake.
Against this background, it is clear that established ways of human interaction in the
region are subject to change, and that scholars of International Relations need to seek
ways of better understanding the nature of these developments and, possibly, their
direction. Given the heterogeneity of the trajectory of Arctic politics and the methodo-
logical problems of predictive, nomothetic approaches to international relations, which
have been discussed at length since the 1990s (Bernstein et al., 2000), this article
reverts to a cultural approach that promises a more holistic explanation for the simul-
taneity of cooperative and individualistic state action in the Arctic. The first aim of the
article is therefore to contribute to a better understanding of what is happening in the
Arctic by developing an alternative explanatory protocol that focuses not on geopoli-
tics, but rather on geopoetics (Mitchell, 2000). In order to complement International
Relations research, the article develops geopoetics as a hermeneutic approach that
looks at how spaces such as the Arctic become meaningful, what Balasopoulos calls
the ‘textuality of geography’, while also taking into account ‘the set of localising and
particularising constraints that act upon (such representations)’, which is referred to as
the ‘geography of textuality’ (Balasopoulos, 2008: 9). The approach decomposes the
state into the cultural practices through which it comes to life, particularly the actions
of people who draw on them and create meaning (Bevir and Rhodes, 2010). Following
critical geographers’ lead (Hawkins, 2017; Last, 2015), geopoetics addresses the social
production of space as a multidimensional, often heterogenous dynamic that is sup-
ported by cultural practices.
The second aim of the article is to contribute to a better understanding of the particular
case of Russian Arctic politics. Although scholars have been interested in the role of
culture with regard to Russian foreign policy and the country’s relation to ‘the West’
(Hopf, 2002, 2005; Morozov, 2002, 2009;...
To continue reading
Request your trial