For the EU, its northern neighbourhood has gradually changed over the last fourteen years.
The Arctic has become an increasingly tense geopolitical region due to climate change, emerging resources and new opportunities for international players together with six indigenous organisations. Particularly the Arctic states have a significant role in the region and its governance. However, a new player has progressively joined the international theatre of the region: The European Union. As it has some unique links to the region via its three member states, its history, scientific achievements and the EEA connection with Iceland and Norway, the EU increasingly engages with the region where it wants to be involved through areas such as enhancing and stabilising governance and sustainable development. Via its generated policy frameworks for the region that is constituted from 2008 onwards, it has constructed an Arctic policy that is worth analysing through an extensive discourse analysis.
By reading and analysing twelve EU foreign policy documents on language discourse on the Arctic, this study has tried to create a better understanding of the Arctic as a geopolitical region for the EU. It has done so by analysing various geopolitical concepts within these frameworks and by interviewing experts on EU and Arctic policy. Thus, the research question for this study was how the Arctic is constructed as a geopolitical region in these EU foreign policy documents.
In doing so, this study has set out a theoretical framework concerning the theory of critical geopolitics to create a novel perspective on the geopolitical tendencies of the Arctic region. Subsequently, I have outlined four different geopolitical concepts in these documents to compress them together into answering the question of this research. These concepts are 1) The EU as a governance stabiliser and enhancer. 2) The EU’s (geopolitical) relation to Russia. 3) Indigenous peoples of the Arctic. And 4) Borders. All these four concepts have been analysed in a critical discourse analysis and supported by six interviews with EU and Arctic policy experts.
Findings
What this study has found is that it has become clear the EU regards the Arctic as inherently linked to Europe. It even refers to some parts of the Arctic as ‘the European Arctic’ or
‘European Arctic areas’ within these documents. Although it is understandable the EU claims this via its unique links with the Arctic, the EU’s interventions in the region do not always go down well with the Arctic states and Indigenous peoples who are de facto governing the region through the Arctic Council. The EU itself believes that it can contribute substantially well to the region and governance through various fields. I have identified six geopolitical ideas of the EU for the Arctic that are in line with this: The EU as a leader to fight climate
change; as a sustainability promoter; as a governance stabiliser and enhancer; as a force against Russia; as a promoter of indigenous peoples’ rights; and as protector of animal welfare. The EU believes it is the best player to enforce these ideas in the Arctic region. As a governance stabiliser and enhancer, it sometimes comes across some difficulties with other players in the region (such as Canada and Russia) since the Arctic is in fact already governed by the Arctic states and Indigenous peoples organisations that are not always enamoured with the EU’s plans. The EU introduces itself sometimes as a bit paternalistic for the Arctic’s problems and that obstructs the EU’s attempts at times to become more involved in the Arctic. However, the research and the interviews show the EU is an experienced bureaucratic institution that can unquestionably help the region and its indigenous peoples through various legal systems, good governance, funding programs and research and development.
Another finding of this study has been the identified twofold objective of the EU in the Arctic. On the one hand, it feels ‘inextricably’ linked to the Arctic region and wants to support and promote both the region itself and the local population (including indigenous peoples).
However, on the other hand, it seems like these efforts of helping are also promoting EU interests. These efforts are then sometimes framed as ways to help the region, but seem to be just as fruitful for the EU. Some scholars have even identified this as ‘self-interest framed as altruism’ (Raspotnik and Osthagen, 2019). This study challenges that notion and argues that the EU’s endeavour in the Arctic is less selfish than it might appear. Reasons for this are the consideration for indigenous peoples within these documents and promoting the fight against climate change and sustainable development. It also has to do with the EU feeling intimately linked with the Arctic region and even partly seeing it as ‘European’. Thus, it seems like the EU feels a responsibility for the challenges the region faces, as is portrayed in various policy documents (HR, 2008; HR, 2012; GS, 2016). In support of this, a number of interviewees (both insiders and outsiders of the EU) noted they do not believe the EU is only engaging with the region for its own interests and even think the EU is extremely willing to help the region and its (indigenous) population. Thus, although the EU is aware of the many opportunities the Arctic poses, it appears like it actually wants to help the region as well.
Another enthralling finding of this research has been the notion of the Arctic region as a new theatre of international politics. Klaus Dodds (2010) calls these performances by interested states a new realist geopolitical reality in the Arctic. Therefore, there even exist tendencies of classical geopolitics in the Arctic region at this moment. One could argue the Arctic endeavour is still a kind of geopolitical ‘realist’ conquest for materials and resources.
The EU has even an advantage here because it operates well through regulated and legal systems compared to other players in the international theatre. However, the EU is not a
‘realist’ geopolitical power. It has no capacity to act and react immediately to external
(geopolitical) actions and cannot operate in an inconsistent and ‘ad hoc’ environment of interaction. European geopolitical action is therefore at its best when the international system is predictable and regulated. However, this has not been the case in the Arctic region hitherto.
All in all, we can conclude that all these four concepts, as they are outlined in these foreign policy documents, have some existing geopolitical tendencies. These geopolitical ideas within these frameworks together form an idea of the Arctic region as a geopolitical construct in which the EU acts as a promoter of indigenous peoples’ rights, a governance stabiliser and enhancer, a force against Russia, ‘the most important’ Arctic actor against climate change and a sustainability and animal welfare promoter. All these ideas are extensively portrayed within these policy documents from 2008 until 2021. The EU absolutely wants to help and promote various matters in a region it feels inseparably linked to. It has become increasingly more aware of the existing governmental structures and actors in the region in recent years. However, the EU is still not accepted as a fully participating actor within these governmental structures (AC etc.). This had partly to do with the EU’s own sporadic misconceptions, but also with increasing geopolitical tensions with other great Arctic powers. Both the EU in the region and the Arctic itself have become progressively geopolitical. This is translated in various foreign policy frameworks in which this has become increasingly more visible. As the new Arctic policy of the EU will launch in the autumn of 2021, further research on the EU in the Arctic as an increasing geopolitical region is needed.
Bibliography
Primary sources
Commission of the European Communities. 2007. An integrated maritime policy for the European Union (COM(2007) 575 Final), Brussels, 10. 10.2007.
doi:10.1094/PDIS-91-4-0467B.
Commission of the European Communities. 2008. The European Union and the arctic region COM(2008) 763 Final, Brussels, 20. 11.2008.
Council of the European Union. 2014. European Union maritime security strategy (11205/
14), Brussels, 24 June 2014.
European Commission. (2012). Developing a European Union policy towards the Arctic Region. Progress since 2008 and next steps: joint communication to the European Parliament and the Council.
European Commission. April 16, 2018. European Union, trade in goods with Russia. http://
trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2006/september/tradoc_113440.pdf.
European Commission, and High Representative. 2016. An Integrated European Union policy for the arctic (JOIN(2016) 21 Final), Brussels, 27. 4.2016.
European Council. 2003. A secure Europe in a better World: European security strategy, Brussels, 12 December 2003.
European Council and the Council. 2021. Joint Communication to the EP. On EU-Russia relations - Push back, constrain and engage.
European Parliament. 2008. Resolution of 9 October 2008 on Arctic Governance (P6_TA (2008)0474).
European parliament, the Council and the European Commission. 2017. Joint statement by the Council and the representatives of the governments of the Member States meeting within the Council, the European Parliament and the Commission.
European Parliament. (2020). A Balanced Arctic Policy for the EU.
High Representative. 2016. Shared vision, common action: A stronger Europe: A global strategy for the European Union’s Foreign and security policy. http://europa.eu/globalstrat egy/sites/globalstrategy/files/pages/files/eugs_review_web_13.pdf.
Secondary sources
Aalto, P. (2013). Explaining the ‘Arctic Exception’ in European Union-Russia relations: What is missing? The Northern Review 37:101–25.
Aalto, P., Dalby, S., & Harle, V. (2003). The critical geopolitics of Northern Europe: Identity politics unlimited. Geopolitics, 8(1), 1-19.
Archer, C. (2010, November). Beggar at the Feast? International, Regional Regulation of the Arctic: is there a role for the EU?. In Arctique. Enjeux et équations géopolitiques au 21ème siècle-Arctic. Geopolitical Issues and Equations in 21st the Century.
Aydın-Düzgit, S. (2014). Critical discourse analysis in analysing European Union foreign policy: Prospects and challenges. Cooperation and Conflict, 49(3), 354-367.
Bachmann, V. (2015). Global Europa, ESPON and the EU’s regulated spaces of interaction.
Journal of European Integration, 37(6), 685-703.
Bevir, M. (2012). Governance: A very short introduction. OUP Oxford.
Bialasiewicz, L., Elden, S., & Painter, J. (2005). The constitution of EU territory. Comparative European Politics, 3(3), 333-363.
Bialasiewicz, L. (2008). The uncertain state (s) of Europe?. European urban and regional studies, 15(1), 71-82.
Borgerson, S. G. (2008). Arctic meltdown-The economic and security implications of global warming. Foreign Aff., 87, 63.
Bretherton, C., & Vogler, J. (1999). The European Union as a global actor. Psychology Press.
Carta, C., & Morin, J. F. (Eds.). (2016). EU foreign policy through the lens of discourse analysis: Making sense of diversity. Routledge.
Dalby, S. (1990). American security discourse: the persistence of geopolitics. Political Geography Quarterly, 9(2), 171-188.
Dalby, S. (1991). Critical geopolitics: discourse, difference, and dissent. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 9(3), 261-283.
De Roo, C., Cavalieri, S., Wasserman, M., Knoblauch, D., Bausch, C., & Best, A. (2008).
Background Paper: Environmental Governance in the Marine Arctic. Arctic TRANSFORM.
Dittmer, J., & Dodds, K. (2008). Popular geopolitics past and future: Fandom, identities and audiences. Geopolitics, 13(3), 437-457.
Dodds, K. J. (1993). Geopolitics, experts and the making of foreign policy. Area, 70-74.
Dodds, K. J., & Sidaway, J. D. (1994). Locating critical geopolitics. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 12(5), 515-524.
Dodds, K. (2010). Flag planting and finger pointing: The Law of the Sea, the Arctic and the political geographies of the outer continental shelf. Political Geography, 29(2), 63-73.
Dodds, K. (2001). Political geography III: critical geopolitics after ten years. Progress in human geography, 25(3), 469-484.
Dodds, K. (2012). Anticipating the Arctic and the Arctic Council: pre-emption, precaution and preparedness. The Arctic Council: Its place in the future of Arctic governance, 1-28.
Dodds, K., & Nuttall, M. (2016). The scramble for the poles: The geopolitics of the Arctic and Antarctic. John Wiley & Sons.
Dowler, L., & Sharp, J. (2001). A feminist geopolitics?. Space and Polity, 5(3), 165-176.
Eder, K. (2006). Europe's borders: The narrative construction of the boundaries of Europe.
European journal of social theory, 9(2), 255-271.
Flint, C. (2016). Introduction to geopolitics. Taylor & Francis.
Fondahl, G., Filippova, V., & Mack, L. (2015). Indigenous peoples in the new Arctic. In The New Arctic (pp. 7-22). Springer, Cham.
Foucault, M. (1980). Power⁄ knowledge Harvester. Brighton, Sussex.
Germond, B. (2013). The European Union at the Horn of Africa: the contribution of critical geopolitics to piracy studies. Global Policy, 4(1), 80-85.
Gilbert, T., Cochrane, A., and Greenwell, S. (2003) „Professional discourse and service cultures: an organisational typology developed from health and welfare services for people with learning disabilities‟, International Journal of Nursing Studies 40, 781-793
Gilmartin, M., & Kofman, E. (2004). Geopolitics, Empire and Imperialism. Feminist Perspectives on Political Geography, 1-13.
Harvey, F. (2018, October 3). Commercial fishing banned across much of the Arctic. The Guardian.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/03/commercial-fishing-banned-across-m uch-of-the-arctic
Heininen, L. (2018). Arctic geopolitics from classical to critical approach–importance of immaterial factors. Geography, Environment, Sustainability, 11(1), 171-186.
Hepple, L. W. (1986). The revival of geopolitics. Political Geography Quarterly, 5(4), S21-S36.
Hettne, B., & Söderbaum, F. (2005). Civilian power or soft imperialism? The EU as a global actor and the role of interregionalism. European foreign affairs review, 10(4).
Hewitt, S. (2009). Discourse analysis and public policy research. Centre for rural economy discussion paper series, 24, 1-16.
Hidding, M., Needham, B., & Wisserhof, J. (2000). Discourses of town and country.
Landscape and Urban Planning, 48(3-4), 121-130.
Holden, P. (2016). In search of structural power: EU aid policy as a global political instrument. Routledge.
Hyndman, J. (2004). Mind the gap: bridging feminist and political geography through geopolitics. Political Geography, 23(3), 307-322.
Joenniemi, P. (2007). Towards a European Union of post-security?. Cooperation and conflict, 42(1), 127-148.
Joenniemi, P., & Jańczak, J. (2017). Theorizing town twinning—towards a global perspective.
Kearns, G. (1984). Closed space and political practice: Frederick Jackson Turner and Halford Mackinder. Environment and planning D: Society and Space, 2(1), 23-34.
Keil, K., & Raspotnik, A. (2014). The European Union’s gateways to the Arctic. European Foreign Affairs Review, 19(1).
Kelly, P. L. (1984). Geopolitical themes in the writings of General Carlos de Meira Mattos of Brazil. Journal of Latin American Studies, 16(2), 439-461.
Knecht, S. (2013). Arctic regionalism in theory and practice: From cooperation to integration?. Arctic Yearbook, 2013, 4.
Knecht, S., & Keil, K. (2013). Arctic geopolitics revisited: spatialising governance in the circumpolar North. The Polar Journal, 3(1), 178-203.
Kobza, P. (2015). Civilian Power Europe in the Arctic: How Far Can the European Union Go North? College of Europe EU Diplomacy Paper 01/2015.
Koivurova, T., A. Stępień, and K. Paula. (2014). Geography matters: The European Union and
the Arctic Ocean. In Regional Strategies to Maritime Security: A Comparative Perspective, ed. E. M. Vázquez Gómez and C. Cinelli, 63–78. Valencia: Tirant Lo Blanch.
Kuus, M. (2010). Critical geopolitics. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of International Studies.
Leerssen, J. (1993). Europe as a Set of Borders. Yearbook of European Studies, 6, 1-14.
Lipponen, P. (1997, September). The European Union needs a policy for the Northern Dimension. In speech presented at the ‘Barents Region Today’conference, Rovaniemi, Finland (Vol. 15, p. 1997).
Mackinder, H. (1904). The Geographical Pivot of History. The Geographical Journal, 23(4), 421-437. doi:10.2307/1775498
Massaro, V. A., & Williams, J. (2013). Feminist geopolitics. Geography Compass, 7(8), 567-577.
Mawdsley, E., & Rigg, J. (2002). A survey of the World Development Reports I: discursive strategies. Progress in Development Studies, 2(2), 93-111.
Moisio, S. (2003). Back to Baltoscandia? European Union and geo-conceptual remaking of the European North. Geopolitics, 8(1), 72-100.
Nye Jr, J. S. (2009). Get smart: Combining hard and soft power. Foreign affairs, 160-163.
Offerdal, K. (2011). The EU in the Arctic: In pursuit of legitimacy and influence. International Journal, 66(4), 861-877.
Østhagen, A. (2011). Utenrikspolitisk entreprenørskap. EU og utviklingen av en Arktis-politikk. Internasjonal politikk, 69(01), 7-35.
Østhagen, A. (2013). The European Union–An Arctic Actor?. Journal of Military and Strategic Studies, 15(2).
Østhagen, A. (2017). Geopolitics and security in the Arctic: what role for the EU?. European View, 16(2), 239-249.
Østhagen, A. (2018). Geopolitics and security in the Arctic. Routledge handbook of the polar regions, 348-356.
Østhagen, A. (2019). The New Geopolitics of the Arctic: Russia, China, and the EU. Wilfried Martens Centre for European Studies.
Østhagen, A., & Raspotnik, A. (2018). Crab! How a dispute over snow crab became a diplomatic headache between Norway and the EU. Marine Policy, 98, 58-64.
Parker G, (1985) Western Geopolitical Thought in the Twentieth Century. Croom Helm, London.
Paterson, J. H. (1987). German geopolitics reassessed. Political Geography Quarterly, 6(2), 107-114.
Potter, J. (1996). Discourse analysis and constructionist approaches: Theoretical background. British Psychological Society.
Rahbek-Clemmensen, J. (2019). When Do Ideas of an Arctic Treaty Become Prominent in Arctic Governance Debates?. Arctic, 72(2), 116-130.
Raspotnik, A. (2016). The European Union and its Northern frontier: European geopolitics and its Arctic context (Doctoral dissertation, Universität zu Köln).
Raspotnik, A., & Stępień, A. (2017). The European Parliament heading towards icy Arctic waters–again.
Raspotnik, A. (2018). The European Union and the geopolitics of the Arctic. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Raspotnik, A., & Østhagen, A. (2019). What about the Arctic? The European Union’s Geopolitical Quest for Northern Space. Geopolitics, 1-25.
Raspotnik, A., & Stępień, A. (2020). The European Union and the Arctic: A Decade into Finding Its Arcticness. In Handbook on Geopolitics and Security in the Arctic (pp. 131-146).
Springer, Cham.
Reuters staff (2007, August 2). Canada mocks Russia's "15th century" Arctic claim. Reuters.
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-russia-arctic-canada-idUKN0246498520070802
Rogers, J. (2009). From ‘Civilian Power’to ‘Global Power’: explicating the European Union's
‘Grand Strategy’through the articulation of discourse theory. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 47(4), 831-862.
Routledge, P. (1996). Critical geopolitics and terrains of resistance. Political geography, 15(6-7), 509-531.
Said, E. (1978). Orientalism: Western concepts of the Orient. Delhi: Penguin, 1995, 2001.
Scarpa, F. (2014). The EU, the Arctic, and Arctic Indigenous Peoples. The Yearbook of Polar Law Online, 6(1), 427-465.
Schott, M. (2007). Geopolitical imaginations about the European Union in recent political discussions. Tijdschrift voor economische en sociale geografie, 98(2), 284-295.
Sellheim, N. (2015). The goals of the EU seal products trade regulation: from effectiveness to consequence. The Polar Record, 51(3), 274.
Stępień, A., & Raspotnik, A. (2015). Exploring reasons & remedies for the EU’s incapability to devise an “Arctic policy”: The quest for coherence. Arctic Yearbook 2015, 432-436.
Stępień, A., & Raspotnik, A. (2016). The EU’s new Arctic Communication: Not-sointegrated, not so-disappointing?’. ArCticles: Arctic Centre Papers, 1, 2016.
Stępień, A., Raspotnik, A., Heininen, L., Exner-Pirot, H., & Plouffe, J. (2016). The EU’s Arctic future following the spring of statements. Arctic Yearbook, 396-400.
Torfing, J. (2005). Discourse theory: Achievements, arguments, and challenges. In Discourse theory in European politics (pp. 1-32). Palgrave Macmillan, London.
Tuathail, G. Ó. (1992). Putting Mackinder in his place: material transformations and myth.
Political Geography, 11(1), 100-118.
Tuathail, G. Ó., & Agnew, J. (1992). Geopolitics and discourse: practical geopolitical reasoning in American foreign policy. Political geography, 11(2), 190-204.
Tuathail, G. Ó. (1993). The effacement of place? US foreign policy and the spatiality of the Gulf Crisis. Antipode, 25(1), 4-31.
Tuathail, G. Ó., & Toal, G. (1996). Critical geopolitics: The politics of writing global space (Vol. 6). U of Minnesota Press.
Tuathail, G. Ó. (1999). Understanding critical geopolitics: Geopolitics and risk society. The Journal of Strategic Studies, 22(2-3), 107-124.
Weber, M. (2009). Defining the outer limits of the continental shelf across the arctic basin:
the Russian submission, states' rights, boundary delimitation and arctic regional cooperation.
The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law, 24(4), 653-681.
Wegge, N. (2012). The EU and the Arctic: European foreign policy in the making. Arctic Review, 3(1).
Wegge, N., & Keil, K. (2018). Between classical and critical geopolitics in a changing Arctic.
Polar Geography, 41(2), 87-106.
Wegge, N., & Merticaru, C. E. (2019). Arctic Policy in the European Union. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics.
Wodak R (2001) The discourse-historical approach. In: Wodak R and Meyer M (eds) Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Sage, pp. 63–95.
Wodak R. (2008). Introduction: discourse studies - important concepts and terms, in Qualitative Discourse Analysis in the Social Sciences, edited by R. Wodak. Basingstoke:
Palgrave, 1-29.
Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (2009). Critical discourse analysis: History, agenda, theory and methodology. Methods of critical discourse analysis, 2, 1-33.
Appendix
Example: Information sheet and consent form:
A critical discourse analysis of how the Arctic is constructed as a geopolitical region in EU Foreign Policy Documents
This is the consent form for the interviews that I’m using for my thesis for the master European studies (European Policy). My project explores how the Arctic is constructed as a geopolitical region for the EU by analyzing EU foreign policy documents. The Arctic is a fascinating territory that is considered as the last ‘unclaimed’ geopolitical region of the world.
The Arctic states such as Canada and Norway are marking their territory, but the other actors Russia and China are appearing in the Arctic as well. What is the EU’s role in this whole ‘Arctic endeavour', and what has been and will be its policy for the region?
For my research, I would like to interview people of EU institutions and European think tanks who are engaged with European geopolitics and the Arctic. This will support the research and analysis of EU policy documents on the Arctic that I will analyze. The data provided by interviewees will potentially be used in my thesis and thus be stored in the UvA system, but the data itself given by interviewees will be destroyed after the thesis is
For my research, I would like to interview people of EU institutions and European think tanks who are engaged with European geopolitics and the Arctic. This will support the research and analysis of EU policy documents on the Arctic that I will analyze. The data provided by interviewees will potentially be used in my thesis and thus be stored in the UvA system, but the data itself given by interviewees will be destroyed after the thesis is