Deepening Hegemonic Competition in the Arctic and Korea's Geopolitical Coordinates

YouTube Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9L-wtO4Dw6Q

Introduction to the Arctic Security Dialogue Series

The East Asia Institute (EAI) is launching an interview series on the Arctic, an increasingly important region. Due to climate change, new Arctic shipping routes are emerging, making the region a focal point for competition among major powers in terms of economy, resources, environmental protection, and military security. We will invite experts to discuss various aspects of the Arctic, including what Arctic strategies Korea should pursue and what preparations we need to make.

The Geopolitical Importance of the Arctic and Korea

Jeon Jae-seong, Director of EAI

I will ask the first question. The Arctic has always felt like a distant place to us. Following President Trump's Greenland incident, interest in the Arctic has increased, and it is well-known that the Arctic is becoming a crucial shipping route due to climate change. Therefore, I would like to ask how the Arctic is significant to Korea's national interests and our diplomacy, and what position Korea occupies within this context.

Cho Eun-jeong, Senior Research Fellow

We need to consider why South Korea needs an Arctic strategy. South Korea is not an Arctic state; how can it differentiate itself from other Arctic nations? And what does the Arctic mean to us? The path to the Arctic includes the East Sea. If one departs from Busan, passes through the East Sea, and reaches the Bering Sea, a fork appears, leading to the Arctic Ocean from both the east and west. In other words, the East Sea is the southernmost gateway to the Arctic Ocean.

However, if the safety of the East Sea is not guaranteed, it will become a choke point, much like the Strait of Hormuz today. Even if the Arctic opens up and navigation becomes possible as it is now, if safety is not guaranteed, passage through the East Sea, Bering Sea, and into the Arctic Ocean will be practically impossible. This is not an issue of climate or environment, nor solely an economic one; it is a problem that must be resolved politically and in terms of security. And at the center of this is the Korean Peninsula. South Korea is a nation that wishes to position itself at this center. Therefore, an opportunity has arrived, and if a role is given, what should we do? Let us contemplate these issues together.

Arctic Strategies of Major Powers

Jeon Jae-seong, Director of EAI

Yes, I understand that Busan is a crucial city, ranking among the top five globally in terms of cargo volume, following Shanghai, Ningbo, and Singapore. Since the route to the Arctic begins from Busan and passes through the East Sea, Korea's position is extremely important. As you mentioned, the security environment, for instance, North Korea's continued missile launches, and security cooperation between Korea and Japan seem significant. In many respects, the Arctic shipping route is not merely an issue of economics or climate, but also one of security. In that regard, you mentioned Arctic states earlier; I assume all Arctic states have their own Arctic strategies. While we may not fully understand the specifics of these strategies, I would like to inquire about the Arctic strategies of major countries, whether we possess an Arctic strategy, and how we should proceed in the future.

Cho Eun-jeong, Senior Research Fellow

Yes, the Institute for National Security Strategy (INSS) regularly hosts the Arctic Security Forum. Briefly introducing the discussions held so far may answer your question. Traditionally, Russia has treated the Arctic as a domestic issue, essentially an Arctic strategy for economic development and regional balanced growth. In contrast, the US Arctic strategy initially focused on environmental conservation, then resource development, and now seems to be escalating into a security issue. Consequently, the Arctic, which was inaccessible for a very long time, is moving away from the international norms of pacifism and exceptionalism towards a direction where 'exceptionalism is no longer acceptable.' As Russia's invasions of Ukraine (2022) and Georgia (2008) heightened vigilance towards Russia in Europe, the perception of threat has increased, leading to the conclusion that 'the Arctic must also be managed.' European countries recognize that melting glaciers could pose an immediate threat to them via the oceans. Thus, numerous Arctic strategies were released around the same time as the Indo-Pacific strategies, and considering the region's specificities, many of these strategies focus on countering Russia.

While environmentalism is a crucial agenda for Europe, the strategy against Russia has become a paramount topic, especially after the invasion of Ukraine. Notably, the long-discussed NATO Arctic Command (ARCCOM) began to materialize concretely in February 2024, following the accession of Sweden and Finland, which solidified the northern territories. In contrast, China is not an Arctic state but refers to itself as a 'near-Arctic state.' Last year, with Russia's permission, it successfully traversed the Arctic Ocean and reached Rotterdam (Netherlands). This year, an LNG carrier is expected to follow. However, considering China's consistent efforts to gain access to the East Sea route, it is striving to overcome the geopolitical disadvantage of needing to pass through the Korean Peninsula to enter the Arctic. This aspect will be discussed in the third Arctic Security Forum.

Opportunities for Korea within Arctic Strategies

Jeon Jae-seong, Director of EAI

I see. The fact that Korea is in a crucial geopolitical position at the gateway through which China passes is also intriguing. The concept of a 'near-Arctic state' is novel, yet also somewhat unfamiliar. In this context, how can an Arctic strategy present opportunities for Korea? Could it become a significant part of our national strategy? I would appreciate your insights on this matter.

Cho Eun-jeong, Senior Research Fellow

This still appears to be a double-edged sword. However, let me first address the economic security aspect. I believe there are significant opportunities in this area. Whether it's Russia, the US, Canada, or Northern Europe, they all possess Arctic territories. These eight countries are members of the Arctic Council, with many more nations and indigenous peoples participating as observers. If there is one common need among these diverse members, it is infrastructure that enables survival in harsh weather and extremely challenging environments, such as power and infrastructure. Firstly, electrical energy is essential. Developing, constructing, and operating this is an area where South Korea excels. Furthermore, in terms of navigation, as you know, Korea is highly proficient in shipbuilding and design. Consequently, we are receiving numerous requests for collaboration from these countries. In these respects, I believe there are opportunities for Korea.

On the other hand, within security, while there are various types, military and diplomatic security remains a difficult area to assess at present. Even the Ministry of National Defense has stated they are undecided. Many realistically suggest that our participation might be limited to governance. However, just because we cannot do everything, does it mean we should not build icebreakers? Do we not have the right to use them? Are we unwilling to use them? This is a question worth considering. At the very least, we should be able to dream. The extent of that dream will determine what we can achieve in the Arctic and how broadly we can expand our security spectrum. In that regard, both opportunities and crises are potentially present.

The Strait of Hormuz Crisis and the Rise of Arctic Routes

Jeon Jae-seong, Director of EAI

Yes, lastly, the war in Iran is ongoing even as we speak. For South Korea, overseas transportation is predominantly conducted by sea, as land-based transportation is practically impossible. As you mentioned, maritime transport to Europe typically goes through the Suez Canal or around Africa. With the potential closure of the Strait of Hormuz, the importance of the Arctic seems to be resurfacing. I would like to hear your thoughts on whether the current conflict in Iran will further elevate the importance of Arctic routes in the overall international geopolitical landscape, whether they can overcome the limitations of existing routes and serve as an alternative to Hormuz, or if other issues remain.

Cho Eun-jeong, Senior Research Fellow

It is quite paradoxical that the Arctic has gained prominence due to the Hormuz crisis. Although they seem like very different regions, I believe they are geopolitically connected. This is because one area (the Strait of Hormuz) was a hot spot, a fading hot spot, while the other region (the Arctic) has been a geopolitical hot spot, yet remained frozen tundra for a very long time. However, their geopolitical value is currently being exchanged and transformed. This is because, beyond mere maritime logistics and energy issues, the fact that the US released an Arctic strategy after the Indo-Pacific strategy suggests that the US is now looking at the Arctic as the next step. Regardless of how Russia views the Arctic, the shift in the US perception of Russia is a crucial development. This is because all geopolitical perceptions are defined by one's strategic needs, and the latest strategy documents released by the US show clear changes in regional and self-interest definitions. In this context, while US interests in the Middle East seem to be retracting, its interests in the Arctic are expanding, alongside the creation of the Space Force. This is evident in the order for icebreakers and President Trump's discussion of Alaskan development on his first day in office. Considering these factors, I would venture to say that the Arctic may be the 'next Hormuz,' and furthermore, that an era for Russia may be dawning. If the thawing of permafrost turns all of Russia's tundra into usable land and creates ice-free ports, opening up both land and sea routes to the oceans and continents, then the old strategy of containing Russia, as envisioned by Mackinder, will no longer be effective. In this sense, the current blockade incident in the Strait of Hormuz may have contributed to accelerating Russia's era.

This is because, not simply concerning issues of maritime logistics and energy, the emergence of the Indo-Pacific strategy followed by the US Arctic strategy suggests to me that the US is now viewing the Arctic as its next area of focus. Regardless of Russia's perspective on the Arctic, the shift in the US perception of Russia is a critically important issue. This is because all geopolitical perceptions are determined by one's strategic necessities, and the latest strategy documents released by the US show a clear change in the definition of regions and their own interests. From this perspective, while there is a sense of US interests being withdrawn from the Middle East, interests in the Arctic are expanding, alongside the establishment of the Space Force. This is evident in the order for icebreaker ships and President Trump's discussion of Alaskan development on his first day in office. Considering these factors, I would venture to say that the next Hormuz may be the Arctic, and furthermore, I dare to suggest that the era of Russia may be approaching. This is because as the glaciers melt, all of Russia's permafrost regions will become usable land, and ice-free ports will emerge. In a situation where both land and sea routes are opened, the old Mackinder-style containment of Russia will no longer be effective. In this regard, the recent incident of the Strait of Hormuz blockade may have contributed to accelerating the era of Russia.

Jeon Jae-seong, Director of EAI

Today, we have analyzed the geopolitical landscape surrounding the Arctic with Dr. Cho Eun-jeong from the Institute for National Security Strategy. We discussed the opportunities for Korea. It seems the Institute for National Security Strategy is conducting an Arctic Forum. We plan to invite you again for future discussions. In particular, the connection between the Iran war and the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz and the Arctic was a point I hadn't considered, and your insights on this were very beneficial. Thank you.■

■ Host: Jeon Jae-seong_Director of EAI; Professor at Seoul National University.

■ Dialogue: Cho Eun-jeong_Senior Research Fellow at the Institute for National Security Strategy.

■ Management and Editing: Lim Jae-hyun_Research Fellow at EAI

Inquiries: 02 2277 1683 (ext. 209) | jhlim@eai.or.kr

Video Transcript

Yes. I will ask the first question. The Arctic used to feel like a very distant place to us. After President Trump's Greenland incident last time, interest in the Arctic has increased, and it is well known that the Arctic is becoming a very important shipping route due to climate change. I would like to ask how the Arctic is important to Korea's national interest and our diplomacy, and what position Korea holds within it. Why does Korea need an Arctic strategy? Korea is a non-Arctic state; what differentiation can it have from other Arctic states?

Geopolitical Position of the Korean Peninsula and the Importance of the Arctic

We need to consider what the Arctic means to us. The East Sea lies on the path to the Arctic. If you depart from Busan, pass through the East Sea, and then go through the Bering Sea, you will reach a crossroads leading to the Arctic Ocean to the east and west. In other words, the East Sea is the southernmost gateway to the Arctic Ocean. But what happens if the safety of the East Sea is not guaranteed? It will become a chokepoint, like the Strait of Hormuz today. Even if the Arctic opens up and can be navigated as it is now, if safety is not guaranteed, it will be practically impossible to travel through the East Sea, the Bering Sea, and then to the Arctic Ocean. This is not a climate or environmental issue, nor an economic one; it is a political and security issue that must be resolved. And the Korean Peninsula is at the center of this.

And Korea can be seen as a country that wants to take on such a role. If so, what opportunities have come our way, and if a role is given, what should we do and how? I hope we can consider such issues together. Yes. Busan is a very important city, ranking among the top five globally in terms of cargo volume, following Shanghai and Singapore. Since shipping routes to the Arctic start from there and pass through the East Sea, Korea appears to be very important. In many respects, Arctic shipping routes are not just an economic or climate issue, but also a security issue. It can be seen that way. In that regard, as mentioned earlier

Comparative Analysis of Major Powers' Arctic Strategies

You mentioned Arctic states; all Arctic states will have their own Arctic strategies. I would like to ask about the Arctic strategies of major countries, whether we have an Arctic strategy, and how we should proceed with it in the future. The Arctic Security Strategy Research Institute regularly hosts the Arctic Security Forum. Traditionally, Russia has dealt with the Arctic as a domestic issue. That is, it was a kind of Arctic strategy for economic and regional balanced development.

In contrast, the US Arctic strategy initially focused on environmental conservation, then resource development, and now seems to be escalating into a security issue. As a result, the Arctic, which was inaccessible for a very long time, is moving in a direction where pacifism and exceptionalism, referred to as international norms, are no longer exceptions. Following Russia's invasion of Ukraine, or Georgia before that, heightened vigilance towards Russia in Europe has led to a widespread perception that the Arctic also needs to be managed. European countries recognize that as glaciers melt, it can pose an immediate threat to us via the Pacific Ocean. Therefore, many Arctic strategies have emerged around the same time as the Indo-Pacific Strategy, and considering the region's specificities, there are quite a few Arctic strategies focused on grand strategy. Of course, environmentalism is a very important agenda for Europe as well, but grand strategy has emerged as a very important theme after the invasion of Ukraine, and notably, the long-discussed NATO Arctic Command has begun to materialize very concretely as of February 2024.

This was made possible by the favorable conditions that arose after Sweden and Finland joined, completing the northern territories. In contrast, China is not an Arctic state. It calls itself a near-Arctic state and last year, with Russia's consent, successfully crossed the Arctic Ocean to reach Rotterdam. This year, an LNG carrier is expected to follow. However, if you think about it, China has always strived to gain access through the East Sea. It is making great efforts to overcome the geopolitical disadvantage of having to pass through the Korean Peninsula to enter the Arctic. This issue is scheduled to be discussed at the 3rd Arctic Forum.

Korea's Arctic Strategy: Opportunities and Dilemmas

The fact that Korea is in a very important geopolitical location, serving as a gateway for China's passage, is also interesting. The concept of a near-Arctic state is new and, at the same time, somewhat relatable. In that sense, what opportunities can an Arctic strategy present for Korea? Can it become an important part of national strategy? Please elaborate on these points. So far, it seems to be multifaceted. However, I will first address the economic and security aspects. I believe there will be significant opportunities in these areas. Whether it's Russia, the US, Canada, or Northern Europe, they all possess the Arctic. Eight countries are members of the Arctic Council, and many more countries and indigenous peoples are involved.

If there is something these diverse members commonly need, it is infrastructure that enables survival in harsh weather and extremely difficult environments. First, electrical energy is needed. Developing, constructing, and operating this is a field where Korea excels. Furthermore, in terms of navigation, as you well know, Korea is very proficient in shipbuilding and design. Therefore, we are receiving many inquiries from these countries. In that regard, there seem to be opportunities for Korea. On the other hand, within security, while there are various types of security, military and diplomatic security seem to be somewhat difficult to assess at this point.

Although the Ministry of National Defense has not yet decided on a clear direction, many realistically suggest that our actual capability might be limited to participating in norm governance. However, even if we cannot do much, does that mean we should build ships but not have the right to use them? Are we not going to sail our ships? This is an issue that warrants consideration. At the very least, we should be able to dream. The size of that dream will determine what we can do in the Arctic and how far we can expand our security spectrum, which needs to be examined. In that regard, both opportunities and crises are potentially present.

The Hormuz Crisis and the Rise of the Arctic

Lastly, even as we speak, the war is ongoing. For Korea, it is difficult to conduct overseas transportation via land routes, so most of it is done by sea. And as you mentioned, the maritime transport routes to Europe are mostly through the Suez Canal and around Africa. With the issue of the Strait of Hormuz closure, the importance of the Arctic seems to be re-emerging. We would like to hear your thoughts on whether the current international situation and the war in Iran will make the Arctic more important in the future, whether it can overcome the limitations of the Suez Canal and serve as an alternative to Hormuz, or if there are still other issues.

It is quite paradoxical that the Arctic has gained prominence due to the Hormuz crisis. Although they seem like very different regions, they are geopolitically connected. This is because one was passion, and the other is geopolitical passion, yet both were long-frozen wastelands. However, their geopolitical value is currently being exchanged. This is because it is not just about maritime logistics or energy issues; the fact that the US has an Arctic strategy following the Indo-Pacific Strategy suggests that the US is looking at the Arctic as the next step. Regardless of how Russia views the Arctic, the change in the US perception of Russia is a very important issue. This is because all geopolitical perceptions are defined by one's strategic needs, and the latest strategy documents released by the US show clear changes in regional and self-interest definitions. In that

Changes in the Geopolitical Value of the Arctic and the Era of Russia

context, while US interests in the Middle East seem to be receding, its interests in the Arctic are expanding with the creation of the Space Force. This is clearly evident in the awarding of icebreaker contracts. In-depth discussions have also been held regarding the development of Alaska. Considering these aspects, I dare say that the next Hormuz will be the Arctic, and furthermore, I dare say that the era of Russia may come. This is because as these glaciers melt, all of Russia's permafrost will become usable land, and ice-free ports will emerge. In a situation where land and sea routes are all open, the old Mackinder-style containment of Russia will no longer be effective. In that sense, this incident of the Strait of Hormuz blockade may have contributed to accelerating the era of Russia.

Today, we have analyzed the Arctic from an international political perspective with Dr. Jo Eun-jeong from the Institute of National Security Strategy. We also discussed the opportunities for Korea, and it seems the Institute of National Security Strategy is hosting an Arctic Forum. We will come to hear the discussion results from future forums. It was a very beneficial time, especially because you addressed the connection between the Hormuz Strait blockade due to the Iran war and the Arctic, which was something I hadn't considered. Thank you.