Current and Future Arctic Cooperation: Where to Next?
Arctic Initiative Research Assistant Viktoria Waldenfels MPA 2025 reflects on lessons learned from a Spring 2024 study group as well as promising paths forward for Arctic cooperation.
Arctic Initiative Research Assistant Viktoria Waldenfels MPA 2025 reflects on lessons learned from a Spring 2024 study group as well as promising paths forward for Arctic cooperation.
Many challenges in the Arctic - biodiversity loss, climate change, resource extraction - span state boundaries, and many of the solutions to these problems still lie in the future. Can the Arctic be a place of solutions? And how can we - future leaders in government and public policy - make a collective effort to find them?
Over the course of the "Conflict or Cooperation in the Arctic: What to Do About Russia During a Climate Crisis?" study group, my classmates and I grappled with practical and ethical obstacles for collaboration in the Arctic and came to a general, but not unanimous, agreement on the need to resume limited cooperation with Russia.
In the second to last session of the study group, we were joined by John Holdren, Faculty Co-Chair of the Belfer Center’s Arctic Initiative, and Eduard Zdor, a research fellow at the University of Alaska originally from Chukotka, Russia, for a discussion of historical examples and other potential avenues for collaboration. What follows are some of my reflections on promising ways forward.
Indigenous peoples are well-positioned to facilitate international collaboration through their enduring cross-border ties. The Bering Strait region is an example of where this sort of collaboration has been really successful in the past.
Many people might not realize this or have made fun of Sarah Palin for correctly noting this back in 2008, but when you’re standing in Alaska, you can see Russian territory. Within the Bering Strait are two small islands which are located less than three miles apart - Big Diomede, situated within Russian territory, and Little Diomede, part of the U.S. On a clear day, you can see the Russian side from the Alaskan island.
Cooperation between both sides - Alaska and the Chukotka region - was started in the 1980 by researchers trying to understand marine mammal migration patterns. What makes this special is the early collaboration between research and Indigenous communities to document bowhead whale migrations, behaviors and population numbers. Because this cooperation has a transcultural nature, two types of knowledge have been harnessed: Western science and Arctic peoples’ traditional knowledge.
The homeland of Inuit extends from Eurasia and the Bering Sea to Greenland and the Atlantic Ocean. In the post Cold War period, Yup'ik, Siberian Yup'ik and Inupiaq people of Alaska and Chukchi people in Russia re-established many ties across the maritime boundary, and from both sides, made contributions to environmental management. In the words of Eduard Zdor, “The Bering Strait is not a border, but a unique habitat of the Chukchi, Inuit, and Siberian Yup'ik who depend on the region to preserve their cultures, languages, and identity.”
Since the start of the War in Ukraine, however, conducting joint research in the Bering Strait region has become increasingly challenging, leading to a halt in the once fruitful collaboration between scientific organizations. In many cases, though, Indigenous communities are keeping in touch across the borders. As the political challenges posed by the war persist, there arises an urgent need to strengthen the bonds of cooperation, ensuring the continued protection and celebration of the diverse cultures that call the Bering Strait region home.
The Cold War era offers valuable lessons for fostering future collaboration with Russia, particularly amidst contemporary tensions. During the Cold War, science advisors managed to facilitate some communication and even cooperation on certain topics, such as nuclear arms control and nonproliferation. Physicists in the 1970s from East and West were allowed to work together on fusion energy. This vision of collaboration was driven by individuals who were aware of the value of collaboration for all stakeholders involved.
Despite discord between the current Russian government and the United States, severing all forms of cooperation would “ultimately undermine our own interests more than punishing the Russian regime”, said John Holdren. It's important to recognize that the Russian population should not be held accountable for the actions of the Putin regime. In a letter written just after Russia’s invasion, Holdren and four other scientists warned: “We urge that our nations’ policymakers and our science and technology communities avoid shunning all Russian scientists for the actions of the Russian government.”
Instead of allowing our scientists to become isolated from each other, we must identify areas of mutual interest where cooperation benefits both nations. Drawing from historical precedent, maintaining a degree of collaboration can prove fruitful. Today, the situation is harder than back then and the level of collaboration from the Cold War has not been reestablished. The open question remains of how we can circumnavigate this problem to resurrect collaboration where it is in both sides’ interest when the sheer affiliation with a joint research project can put people in danger?
How can scientists hold on to existing ties that have been so fruitful in increasing awareness and preservation of languages, traditions, wildlife and understanding of this unique region? Student participants in the study group proposed several potential solutions, including:
A few exceptions to the current halt in collaboration offer some hope: the new Central Arctic Ocean Fisheries Agreement continues to convene all signatories, including Russia, and move forward on developing a joint research plan. The Arctic Council recently resumed virtual Working Group meetings. In another arena, exchanges on nuclear arms control and nonproliferation between the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and a corresponding organization on the Russian side are still upheld today, communicating through the miracle of electronics. These topics are apparently important enough to Russia to allow some scientists to participate in international discussions. The open question is: are there other issues on which collaboration can be resurrected?
Western policymakers should consider allowing federal marine biologists, climate scientists, and oceanographers to resume some level of communication with their Russian counterparts, in order not to lose the momentum gained over decades of work collecting and sharing data about life and changes in the Bering Strait and Arctic Ocean. Because climate change and associated oceanographic and ecological changes are occurring so quickly in the Arctic, maintaining ongoing information exchange with Russia is in Western countries’ interest to understand impacts on our own resources. Western scientists and those who have been involved in transboundary research and nature protection for 30 years need to hold on to the relationships, and continue to evaluate priorities so that when the geopolitical situation allows, they can spring back to action.
As John Holdren put it, “Decisions made in Western countries today about how to deal with Russia and Russians may be in place for a long time and, ultimately, difficult to reverse.”
Waldenfels, Viktoria. “Current and Future Arctic Cooperation: Where to Next?.” Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School, May 1, 2024