Why is Everybody So Interested in Greenland and the Arctic? [Podcast]

The new administration’s interest in cold, snowy regions of the world might have come out of the blue to many Americans, but not to Tim Nichols. He leads Duke University Sanford School of Public Policy’s Master of National Security Policy Program – and he teaches about the growing strategic importance of Greenland and the broader Arctic. He joins Manoj Mohanan, interim public policy dean at Duke to discuss how melting ice is opening up international competition related to shipping and mineral drilling.

Conversation Highlights

Responses have been edited for clarity. 

The melting ice is opportunity for speedier shipping

The most accessible route that can connect China to Europe is over Russia in something called the Northern Sea Route. It cuts 12 steaming days off of a transit that leaves a port in China and arrives in Russia, which is pretty substantial economically – 12 fewer steaming days.

Image

Last year, they moved 39 million tons of cargo [along that route], which isn't a lot. (We move a billion tons a year through our other strategic choke points.) But as the Suez Canal is starting to deal with some difficulties in the Red Sea and the Panama Canal is not deep enough, people look at new opportunities to transit hemispheres with great economic interest.

In September of 2024, a cargo ship called the Flying Fish which carries 5,000 containers went from China to Russia over the Northern Sea Route no problem. And so, it's a case study of [how the shipping routes could change with melting ice].

Now, I do want to share some caution, which is the search and rescue systems, the navigation systems, the satellite systems, the communication systems are all still pretty unrefined. In order to have serious shipping, we're going to have to build infrastructure.

Also - the Russians are not agreeable to international shipping without the Russians supervising all of it. Every single ship that goes over Russia, even though we consider it international waters, is escorted and must pay Russia. So, there's a policy issue there that needs to be worked through.

On risks for the US to consider

Well, one thing that I think is really important is often overlooked is the indigenous populations. They're going to be affected by this when infrastructure begins to appear.

The second is there will be environmental damage. You remember the [EXXON] Valdez, the oil tanker [accident] and the devastation that it had in northern Alaska -- that's bound to happen. We have to come to terms with that.

And we have to have some kind of definition or oversight of how commerce is going to occur, so it's done safely, and it's done within the regulations of the international community. That's going to require policy work at the international level.

On the possibility of US investment in the Arctic

I think the general assessment is the United States is a little bit behind because of our democratic construct -- we can't convince senators from Arkansas or from North Carolina that the Arctic is where our priority should be.

Congress has a lot of other priorities. It’s hard for the United States to get traction on major investments for infrastructure in the Arctic. We have no deep-water ports in the Arctic. We have two icebreakers, and both of them are in terrible shape. They're over 30 years old. (The Russians have 47 [icebreakers], and the Chinese have more than we do.)

It’s difficult domestically to get the type of resources to actually exploit the Arctic in a way that would be economically beneficial at the moment.

Advice for the new administration related to the Arctic and Greenland?

Number one: the United States needs to listen to the Arctic experts. Those are the Finns, the Swedes, the Norwegians and the people of Iceland.

Number two: we have to let science drive. We have an Arctic Research Committee in the United States that prioritizes federal grants and federal funding. We're well suited to do research in the Arctic now.

Number three: we have to have an understanding of what security in the Arctic really looks like. We have to have a mature look at what is happening in the Arctic, which is: it's being militarized. It's defensively militarized, but it's being militarized.

If I were to sit down and talk with policymakers, I would say the first thing that we can do and the cheapest thing that we can do is slowly work on our infrastructure in the Arctic: research stations, communications, transportation, information management. Once you get that, then you can slowly build little populations of folks who can contribute to Arctic research and Arctic development. It's already happening. There are a number of big petroleum projects in the North Slope of Alaska that have been going very successfully for many years, but [even so,] we're not racing to the Arctic. It's very, very expensive to do just a little bit. And the United States needs to take a mature approach.

• Read the episode transcript
• Find out more about Tim Nichols
• Find out more about the Master of National Security Policy degree