The political landscape in the Arctic is currently strained, primarily due to the ongoing conflict in Ukraine and Russia’s resulting isolation from the international community. This has had a significant impact on the Arctic Council, the primary intergovernmental forum for Arctic cooperation. The seven other Arctic nations (Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, and the United States) suspended full cooperation with Russia within the Council following the invasion of Ukraine. Ever since, despite high-level attempts to break the deadlock, windows for potential dialogues closed down.
However, recognizing the importance of continued collaboration on pressing issues such as climate change and search and rescue operations, these seven nations have gradually resumed the work of the Arctic Council’s Working Groups, albeit without Russia’s participation. Initially, this resumption involved a written procedure for communication and decision-making, followed by the gradual reintroduction of virtual meetings for the Working Groups. While this does not signify a full return to normal operations within the Arctic Council, it represents a pragmatic approach to addressing critical issues in the region while upholding a firm stance against Russia’s actions.
China’s growing interest in the Arctic further complicates the geopolitical situation. While not an Arctic state, China has been actively seeking opportunities for economic engagement and resource development in the region, raising concerns among some Arctic nations about potential environmental impacts and security implications.
Overall, the Arctic region faces a complex and evolving geopolitical landscape. The current situation highlights the need for continued dialogue and cooperation among Arctic nations to address shared challenges and ensure the sustainable development of the region, even amidst ongoing geopolitical tensions.
The Geneva Centre for Security Policy and the High North Talks
Despite the general view that the platforms for such dialogue and cooperation have come to a complete standstill, there are still rare channels open. One channel is offered by a Switzerland-based center. The Geneva Centre for Security Policy (GCSP), founded in 1995, is an internationally renowned foundation based in Geneva that is dedicated to promoting peace, security and international cooperation. Through a comprehensive range of executive education, applied research and dialogue platforms, the GCSP supports decision-makers from various sectors in developing effective solutions to global challenges. With its broad network, expertise and commitment to peace and security, the GCSP makes an important contribution to addressing global challenges and promoting a more peaceful and secure world.
Apart from its executive education programs for government officials, diplomats, military officers, international civil servants, and staff from NGOs and the private sector, the GCSP also conducts applied research on current security policy issues. The research results aim to assist policymakers, and dialogue processes aspire to elaborate creative policy ideas to inform and influence decision-making among governments, international organizations and other stakeholders, particularly in difficult security contexts.
The dialogue platforms organized by the GCSP promote discreet and frank exchanges between decision-makers, experts and practitioners from different fields. These events enable participants to learn from each other, to get to know different perspectives and to work together on solutions to current challenges.
One such platform is the High North Talks, founded and facilitated by Paul Dziatkowiec, Director of Mediation and Peace Support at the GCSP. Polar Journal AG talked to him about these talks and their prospects.
Polar Journal AG (PJ): The situation in the Arctic is described as a constant rattling of sabres between Russia and all other Arctic Nations and especially Nato. Some outlets create the impression of a constant threat of war. How serious is this to be taken?
Paul Dziatkowiec (PD): The Arctic region, once a beacon of international collaboration, is facing a significant breakdown in cooperation following Russia’s attack on Ukraine. This has led to heightened tensions and an increased risk of military confrontation, a deeply concerning development given the region’s historical significance as a model of peaceful collaboration.
While I believe there is no need for undue alarm, the current situation is troubling. The lack of trust and dialogue between Russia and the West significantly increases the potential for miscalculations and misunderstandings that could escalate into conflict. Given these risks, I would argue that there is room – particularly at an unofficial level – for maintaining channels for confidential communication to clarify misunderstandings, understand each other’s core interests, and prevent dangerous incidents.
Initiatives like the “High North Talks,” which I initiated at GCSP in 2022, are crucial in this context. By elaborating guardrails and confidence-building measures, providing informal communication channels, and injecting creative ideas into the increasingly toxic official discourse, we can make a small contribution to maintaining relative stability in the Arctic. My team is committed to contributing to these efforts to ensure a more secure and predictable future for this strategically important region.
Paul Dziatkowiec is the founder and facilitator of the High North Talks, as well as Director of Mediation and Peace Support at the Geneva Centre for Security Policy (GCSP). In over 12 years as a mediator and dialogue facilitator, at GCSP and earlier the Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue (HD) he has initiated or led numerous confidential dialogue processes in situations of armed conflict or diplomatic tensions, including in the context of Ukraine-Russia, the Caucasus, the Middle East, Northeast Asia, Africa and Southeast Asia. Previously, Dziatkowiec was a senior Australian diplomat, serving over more than a decade in the Middle East, Africa and the Asia-Pacific, and engaging in multilateral negotiations at the UN in Geneva, New York and Nairobi.
PJ: Which lines of communications still exist between the two sides?
PD: At the official level there is of course the multilateral system, and official diplomacy, with their various forums and opportunities for direct interaction at the policymaking level. Embassies and envoys are important tools in international relations, and naturally continue as always to have a critical function. So, discussions still happen – but these days they have a less constructive flavour, and are on a much more limited scale.
We have observed that since Russia’s war on Ukraine, there are significant constraints on constructive dialogue at the official (or ‘Track I’) level. This dynamic has spread across multiple forums and diverse issues, in a massive knock-on effect of Russia’s brutal invasion. Sadly but perhaps inevitably, this affects a wide spectrum of important and urgent international issues and concerns – even many such issues where cooperation between Russia and Western countries was the norm before February 2022, for example in the Arctic, the Middle East, or Northeast Asia.
On the Arctic more specifically, there are still pockets of practical cooperation that offer some hope, and can serve as inspiration – for example on emergency response or fisheries. As mediators, we are the last ones who hold on to the positives, and conditioned to seize on openings – so I would end the answer by saying that despite everything, there is something to build on.
PJ: What exactly are the High North Talks?
PD: The High North Talks (HNT) are an unofficial dialogue platform that aims, through constructive and open exchanges, to foster peaceful collaboration in the Arctic. In the turbulent geopolitical climate, our talks provide a discreet setting for experts from all Arctic nations to constructively discuss the future of this strategically important region.
We address a wide range of interconnected issues, from environmental concerns and climate change to security, governance, and scientific collaboration. The sheer magnitude of these challenges underscores the Arctic’s significance for the entire world, making the preservation of dialogue absolutely essential.
Through our talks, we strive to develop actionable ideas that can influence decision-making and restore cooperation among Arctic states, at least on the most urgent issues. By identifying common interests, developing creative ideas, and leveraging past successes in collaboration, we hope to prevent the Arctic from becoming another arena for geopolitical conflict. It is entirely rational to condemn what Russia is doing in Ukraine, which undermines the most important tenets of our international system, and to understand the importance of punishing such behaviour, while also believing that these types of discreet, private diplomacy efforts are vital in fostering understanding and finding ways to deal with urgent problems. Ultimately, our goal is to contribute to a more peaceful and cooperative future for the Arctic, which I hope will eventually lead to the restoration of its status as a model for international collaboration.
PJ: Why are they different from talks within the Arctic Council?
PD: The Arctic Council, as the leading international forum for Arctic affairs, is vital for all Arctic states and we all want it to survive through these challenging times. Its unique structure, allowing for the participation of Indigenous Peoples’ organizations on an equal footing with states, ensures that the concerns of those most affected by Arctic developments are considered in intergovernmental discussions. This model of inclusivity and collaboration offers valuable lessons for other international bodies.
Our “High North Talks” complement the Arctic Council’s work by providing an unofficial platform for open and honest discussions on sensitive issues, fostering creativity and robust debate. This Track II (unofficial) format, which follows the Chatham House Rule, allows participants to speak freely without public scrutiny, promoting constructive dialogue on delicate topics.
The unofficial nature of the High North Talks, which are not bound by intergovernmental conventions and diplomatic protocols, makes it a unique and valuable forum in the challenging multilateral environment. It provides a safe and discreet space for experts to constructively discuss the future of the Arctic region, contributing to a more nuanced understanding of the challenges and opportunities ahead.
PJ: Within the Arctic Council, working groups have resumed their work again and there are apparently contacts between the seven Arctic nations and Russia on this level again. A result of the Hight North Talks?
PD: From my perspective, it’s encouraging to see the Arctic Council’s working groups resuming their activities, even if on a limited scale. This positive step, largely due to the Norwegian Chair’s efforts, allows for essential projects to continue, particularly those impacting the Arctic’s inhabitants.
However, we are far from returning to normalcy. The geopolitical environment remains challenging, and much will need to be rebuilt after an extended pause. While I wouldn’t directly attribute recent developments to our High North Talks, I certainly know what great efforts we have made to contribute to positive outcomes.
For over two years, we have been discussing crucial issues on the Council’s agenda, generating creative ideas, and exploring avenues for cooperation. If our efforts have helped move the needle, even slightly, in a positive direction, then it has been a worthwhile endeavour.
Our work at the unofficial level continues, as discreet dialogue and quiet diplomacy are essential in addressing urgent Arctic issues that cannot wait for the resolution of broader geopolitical conflicts. We want to play a helpful and complementary role, and explore innovative policy options that can inform government thinking, and ultimately contribute to putting the Arctic back on a more positive trajectory.
PJ: Is there a chance of a more specific dialogue again where approaches like Science diplomacy have failed?
PD: I am not sure this should be characterized as ‘failure’ but perhaps a work in progress. These things take time, patience and perseverance. I still believe that science diplomacy represents an important entry point to dialogue.
At the state-to-state level, this is more difficult to do because of the need to follow protocols, and of course national positions. Having worked previously as a diplomat both in multilateral and bilateral settings, I can say that the private diplomacy approach often provides more flexibility and room for innovation – which can be immensely helpful when official dialogue is stuck.
I am proud to lead a Mediation and Peace Support Department that has connections and skills acquired through decades of experience in both official diplomacy and ‘private diplomacy’ and can therefore meld the best of both worlds, which can be most useful when creative thinking is needed; along with the know-how to bring new ideas onto the radar of policy- and decision-makers.
Interview and article: Dr. Michael Wenger, Polar Journal AG
More on the subject
