This session poses the question, what role does science diplomacy play in Arctic political, economic and transnational relations between Europe, Canada, Russia, USA and China, India, Japan, South Korea and Singapore? The Polar regions, both the Arctic and Antarctic, are science-heavy regions, relatively much of the outside attention to these regions and activities in these regions has historically been and continues to be scientific research. This session will explore the role of science in Arctic political, economic and transnational relationships historically and today. Science through the working groups seems to play a large role in the working of the Arctic Council. The European Union invests in Arctic science, is that a way for the EU to enter Arctic governance and to build legitimacy and authority in peripheral Arctic regions of Europe? What is the role of Arctic science in a complex relationship between the West and Russia, cooperative in energy trade, but geopolitically competitive, is Arctic science a space of collaboration and discussion? The Arctic engagement of rising Asian powers is overwhelmingly in science, and there is a strong tendency, that this engagement is non-controversial, while talk of investments in Arctic natural resources is highly controversial. Do the Arctic Council member states use science as a non-conflictual way to integrate Asia in the Arctic, and do rising Asian powers use science as a way of entering the Arctic in a non-provocative way? 

Organized by Rasmus Gjedssø Bertelsen (rasmus@cgs.aau.dk) on behalf of Aalborg and Tromsø University. Please submit proposals to the organizer.

PROGRAMME:

13:15
Chinese Arctic Science Diplomacy – Lessons for Managing Power Transition?
Rasmus Gjedssø Bertelsen, LI Xing, Mette Højris Gregersen, AAU

13:30
Do research infrastructures in Greenland play a science diplomacy role?
Morten Rasch, PhD, Chief Consultant, Arctic Coordinator, University of Copenhagen

13:45
Human Flags - Scientists and Resource Politics in the Arctic
Helena Gonzalez Lindberg, Lund Universitet

14:00
Russia’s Arctic science diplomacy
Alexander Sergunin, St. Petersburg State University

14:15
Swedish Arctic science as both an instrument and a product of diplomacy in historical perspective
Peder Roberts, pwrobert@kth.se and Dag Avango, dag.avango@abe.kth.se , KTH Royal Institute of Technology

14:30
Science Diplomacy and the Arctic, 1984–1996. From Cold War to Arctic Council
Stian Bones, Associate Professor in History, University of Tromsø - The Arctic University of Norway

14:45-15:30
Plenary discussion

15:30
Coffee

ABSTRACTS:

Chinese Arctic Science Diplomacy – Lessons for Managing Power Transition?
Rasmus Gjedssø Bertelsen, LI Xing, Mette Højris Gregersen, AAU

The international system is characterized by power transition with the rise of emerging market states, especially China, which raises important international policy and research questions. Whether to contain and balance China (John Mearsheimer) or integration and socialize China (Joseph Nye) is an important debate on addressing power transition. What does this debate look like zoomed into the Arctic and even further to Arctic science? How do Arctic states and China use science (diplomacy) for addressing power transition in the Arctic context? This paper argues that Arctic states use Arctic scientific collaboration with China to integrate China into Arctic institutions, while China uses Arctic science to enter the Arctic in a non-threatening way. This strategy from both sides is succesful in comparison with the suspicions raised by the spectable of Chinese energy and raw materials investments in the Arctic. General lessons can be drawn for the use of science diplomacy for managing power transition.

Do research infrastructures in Greenland play a science diplomacy role?
Morten Rasch, PhD, Chief Consultant, Arctic Coordinator
Department of Geoscience and Natural Ressource Management
University of Copenhagen
mras@ign.ku.dk

There is internationally a growing political interest in arctic science and in establishment of arctic research infrastructure. Canada is currently building a new ‘world-class’ research station to ’serve the world’, Russia finished the construction of a very large research station at Samoylov in Siberia in 2013, a little more than a year after President Putin visited the site , in Ny Aalesund, on Svalbard, thirteen countries have established research stations in an old mining town, non-arctic countries like China and Korea are building ice-breakers, and Norway provides a state-of-the-art arctic university to Norwegian and foreign students in the town of Longyearbyen on Svalbard. The talk will discuss possible reasons for the growing interest in establishment of arctic research infrastructure and will ask the question whether similar developments could be seen in Greenland.

Human Flags - Scientists and Resource Politics in the Arctic
Helena Gonzalez Lindberg, Lund Universitet
helena_g.lindberg@svet.lu.se

The Arctic is a popular place to do research. Many countries fund scientific research projects in the region, and international scientists are a considerable part of the Arctic population. Knowledge and expertise about the Arctic is no longer restricted to the Arctic states. Less controversial than flag planting at the North Pole and test drilling for oil, scientists and research stations are often regarded as apolitical. While knowledge about Arctic ecosystem, ice-pack flows, and atmospheric changes are important, the heavy investments made in Arctic research can also be viewed as opportunities for the sponsor to claim physical presence and know-how in and about the Arctic. A major resource discovery within the proximity of a research station or research area could potentially rock this seemingly innocent practice. This paper will critically explore the presence of international scientists and research centres on Svalbard, historically and today. In particular the focus is on researchers from non-Arctic states such as China, Japan and South Korea. What role do scientists and knowledge-production play at the so-called new resource frontier? If science is a successful strategy for non- Arctic states to enter the region, does this also give access to resource politics? The aim is to provide an overview of scientists present on Svalbard, to discuss how scientists have been constructed as apolitical actors and how science and knowledge-production can work as political projects.

Russia’s Arctic science diplomacy
Alexander Sergunin
St. Petersburg State University

The main research objective of this paper is to examine the contours of Russia’s science policies in the Arctic. The paper will focus on the following issues: historical and doctrinal/conceptual backgrounds of Arctic science diplomacy; institutional dimension of Arctic research (how the Arctic studies are organized in Russia); financial problems pertaining to Arctic research; main Russian paradigms of Arctic science diplomacy; key priorities of Russia’s Arctic research, and, finally, development of some practical recommendations to improve the country’s Arctic science diplomacy.

Swedish Arctic science as both an instrument and a product of diplomacy in historical perspective
Peder Roberts, pwrobert@kth.se and Dag Avango, dag.avango@abe.kth.se , KTH

This paper examines how science has historically functioned as both a tool of political diplomacy for Swedish actors (including the Swedish state), and as a result of diplomacy. We argue that individuals have historically been able to use Arctic research as a means of building fruitful research collaborations that drew upon Sweden’s status as a non-claimant of Arctic territory, most notably in the case of Spitsbergen. But geopolitics has also provided a barrier to Swedish engagement in Arctic research, particularly during the Cold War years when East-West tensions made a state Arctic science program politically difficult. It has only been in the past generation that Sweden has remedied this situation – and done so with an enthusiasm due in equal part to the growing association of Arctic science with environmental monitoring, and to the value of science as a diplomatic instrument within the context of the Arctic Council and its organs. We conclude with reflections on this dual nature of science in diplomacy, as both instrument and product, with particular attention to the interplay of research agendas and political contexts. This is true as much today as in the past. Reflecting upon the reasons why particular forms of science have proven politically opportune (and in what ways) can help illuminate this relationship, and lead to more nuanced evaluations of the relationship between science and politics.

Science Diplomacy and the Arctic, 1984–1996. From Cold War to Arctic Council
Stian Bones, Associate Professor in History
UiT The Arctic University of Norway
stian.bones@uit.no

There are many examples from the Cold War that illustrate in what ways scientific cooperation and “science diplomacy” – either intentionally or unintentionally – helped to bridge gaps between East and West. This does not mean, however, that science always works this way – a fact that many scientist were well aware of. Scientific studies of nature and culture in the European Arctic did carry a potential for increased interaction, but also of the opposite. Science could easily come to function as a separate driving force in the rivalry between East and West. On several occasions, that was actually the case. The aim of this presentation is to analyse main trends in Arctic science diplomacy through a transitional phase of history – from the Cold War to a new world order. To what extent did states employ scientists in order to achieve certain political goals? Can we, today, single out certain patterns? Did these patterns change much from the middle of 1980s to the middle of the 1990s? And, finally: Did science diplomacy matter?