NORWAY AND THE ARCTIC: THE IMPLEMENTATION OF NORWEGIAN DEFENSE POLICY IN COPING WITH MILITARY DEVELOPMENT IN THE REGION
(2013 – 2016)
By RONALD INDRAWAN IMANUWEL WOWILING ID No. 016201300132
A thesis presented to the Faculty of Humanities, International Relations Study Program President University in partial fulfillment of the requirements of Bachelor Degree in International Relations Major in Defense and Strategic Studies
January 2017 II
III
IV
ABSTRACT
Ronald Indrawan Imanuwel Wowiling, 016201300132, NORWAY AND THE ARCTIC: THE IMPLEMENTATION OF NORWEGIAN DEFENSE POLICY IN COPING WITH MILITARY DEVELOPMENT IN THE REGION (2013 – 2016)
Advisors: Prof. Anak Agung Banyu Perwita, Ph. D; Indra Alverdian, Msi
The Arctic, situated in the northernmost area on Earth, has become increasingly attractive for many nations to claim their rights to territorial sovereignty over some portions of the region. The early exploration was began since the first decades of the 20th century merely to have scientific, geopolitical, and even commercial purposes with the pursuit of national interests. Being aware of the fact that climate change is happening in the Arctic has made most of the ice melted that it resulted to give several access to bigger continents, abundant resources and path to the other Arctic nations, have created uncertainty and possible tensions in the region. Norway, as one of the Arctic nations, is impacted by this uncertainty of global security environment in the Arctic and the state can’t deny but to feel the massive increase military pressure and political activity in the Arctic region.
Among all of the Arctic nations, Norway is one of the Arctic nations that value deeper international cooperation and believe in using military as the last resort. However there is one state that is being the most anticipated Arctic nation by Norway in the High North which is Russia. Russia’s illegal actions encompasses both hard security issues and soft security issues thus Norway needs to increase its military capabilites since Russia has started to eyeing the High North. Therefore, Norway has been aiming a defense policy based on cooperation and deterrence, improved and developed by current Prime Minister Erna Solberg. The Norwegian Armed Forces (army, navy, air force) will be reformed and modernized, military budget will be allocated more, in hope that it will be able to cope and prevent potential threats and challenges in the Arctic especially against Russia’s illegal actions and military developments.
Key Words: The Arctic, National Interests, Arctic Nations, Military Capabilities, Norwegian Defense Policy, Military Reform, Military Development, Threat Perception
V
ABSTRAK
Ronald Indrawan Imanuwel Wowiling, 016201300132, NORWAY AND THE ARCTIC: THE IMPLEMENTATION OF NORWEGIAN DEFENSE POLICY IN COPING WITH MILITARY DEVELOPMENT IN THE REGION (2013 – 2016)
Advisors: Prof. Anak Agung Banyu Perwita, Ph. D; Indra Alverdian, Msi
Arktik, terletak di paling utara Bumi, telah menjadi semakin menarik bagi banyak negara untuk mengklaim hak-hak mereka untuk kedaulatan teritorial atas beberapa bagian dari wilayah tersebut. Eksplorasi awal telah dimulai sejak dekade pertama abad ke-20 dan eksplorasi tersebut memiliki tujuan untuk ilmiah, geopolitik, dan bahkan komersial dengan mengejar kepentingan nasional. Menyadari sebuah fakta bahwa perubahan iklim yang terjadi di Arktik telah membuat sebagian besar es mencair yang mengakibatkannya terbukanya beberapa akses ke benua-benua besar di Arktik, sumber daya yang melimpah dan jalan ke negara Arktik lainnya, dan juga telah menciptakan ketidakpastian dan ketegangan di wilayah ini. Norwegia, sebagai salah satu negara Arktik, dipengaruh oleh ketidakpastian ini terkait dengan keamanan lingkungan global di Kutub Utara dan negara ini tidak didapat menyangkal selain merasakan peningkatan tekanan militer besar- besaran dan aktivitas politik di wilayah Arktik.
Di antara semua negara Arktik, Norwegia merupakan salah satu negara yang menghargai kerjasama international dan percaya dalam menggunakan militer sebagai pilihan terakhir. Namun ada satu negara Arktik yang paling diantisipasi oleh Norwegia di High North yaitu Rusia. Tindakan ilegal Rusia meliputi hard security issues dan soft security issues sehingga Norwegia perlu meningkatkan kapabilitas militernya karena Rusia telah memulai untuk mengincar High North. Oleh karena itu, Norwegia telah membidik kebijakan pertahanan didasarkan pada kerjasama dan pencegahan, ditingkatkan dan dikembangkan oleh Perdana Menteri Erna Solberg. Angkatan Bersenjata Norwegia (darat, laut, udara) akan direformasi dan dimodernisasi, anggaran militer akan dialokasikan lebih, dengan harapan bahwa kiat-kiat tersebut akan mampu mengatasi dan mencegah potensi ancaman dan tantangan di Kutub Utara terutama terhadap tindakan ilegal dan perkembangan militer Rusia.
Kata Kunci: Arktik, Kepentingan Nasional, Negara-Negara Arktik, Kemampuan Militer, Kebijakan Pertahanan Norwegia, Reformasi Militer, Pembangunan Militer, Persepsi Ancaman
VI
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
After battling and struggling through storms & thunders composing this thesis, finally I could scream loud and proud that I have accomplished my thesis as so close towards the deadline. This thesis would not be completed without all the guidance and assistance i need from amazing and inspiring people around me. They have contributed their priceless time and support since the preparation of writing the thesis to the the accomplishment of the research.
First of all, I would like to present my greatest and biggest gratitude from the bottom of my heart to the Almight God who have never given up on me and enlightening me with tons of guidance, love and peace I need. You have shown me to believe in myself and left the rest to you. I can’t thank You enough for what You have given to me, You have blessed me with so many fairest things in the world!
Second, this thesis would not be finished in time without the prayers and supports from all of my families. I would like to thank my father, Imanuel Wowiling, for supporting me morally and financially, for teaching me in not giving up on yourself. I would like to thank my mother, Anita Widayanti, for kindly encouraging me with all the sweet words, special mother-made and supporting me morally and reminding me to always pray and ask for forgiveness and clearance from Him. I would like to also thank my brother and sister even though we are miles apart, but you somehow magically poured me the support I need.
Third, this thesis would not be finished perfectly without the guidance and assistance from the most caring, inspiring, gaul, awesome, down-to-earth, the coolest, the best, the funniest (ALL THE SUPERLATIVES) advisors one could ask for, Prof. Anak Agung Banyu Perwita, Ph. D., and Indra Alverdian, Msi. If it was not because of you all motivating me, guiding me, and encouraging me, this thesis would value less but a mere requirement to get degree. So I thank you! I’d also like to thank one of the best lecturers International Relations of PU could have, Hendra Manurung for suggesting me ideas for the betterment and improvement of this thesis.
Fourth, I would like to personally thank to all of International Relations lecturers and staffs because you all, I have received valuable knowledge and materials I need for my thesis. I would also like to thank President University for letting me, giving me a chance to study in the one of the most reputable university in Indonesia especially within the coolest study program, International Relations. It has been an honor for being part of its growing!
Special thanks, I would like to present my sincere gratitude to my best friends, my chingus1, my weirdos, geniuses; Marella, Lanny, Gabi, and Anti. Without you all I could not find the joy of having spectacular and superb friends filling your memories in University life. To Marella, thank
1 Korean for ‘friend’
VII you for being my second-mother, thank you for reminding me to prioritize my thesis more than anything else, thank you for always cheering me up and encouraging me. To Lanny, thank you for inspiring me with your geniusness. One of the reasons I was able to finish this thesis is because I was inspired on how you are so persistent and your dedication is just Amazing. To Gabi, thank you for always teaching me about things that I have no idea about. You are like the Mr-Know-It-All a friend could ask for! Whenever we are in doubt towards something, you always set a light to guide us through. To Anti, thank you for giving me and providing me materials and reference I need for my thesis. Without them, I would need to do double job to research and it indeed would take much of my time but through the references and materials you have shared me, I feel assisted! I’d also like to deliver my special gratitude to Mita Listya (IR Defense 2014) for assisting me in preparing my oral examinations and has been showing me lights somehow. You have helped me when I was not certain to whom I should ask, I thank you!
Last but not least, I would like to present my gratitude to the one and only defense squad and classmates could ask for, Defense 1. We have been in the same class since the first time in this University, we have learnt each others’ potentials and lackings. Thank you, for being there as the best ever squad, I wish you all to have clearer paths in the future!
Cikarang, January 26th, 2017
Ronald Indrawan Imanuwel Wowiling
VIII
TABLE OF CONTENTS
THESIS ADVISOR RECOMMENDATION LETTER ...... II DECLARATION OF ORIGINALITY ...... III
APPROVAL SHEET PANEL OF EXAMINERS ...... IV
ABSTRACT ...... V
ABSTRAK ...... VI
ACKNOWLEDGMENT ...... VII
TABLE OF CONTENTS ...... IX
LIST OF TABLES ...... XII
LIST OF FIGURES ...... XIII
LIST OF ACRONYMS ...... XIV
CHAPTER I - INTRODUCTION...... 1
I.1. Background of the Study ...... 1
I.2. Identification of the Problem ...... 5
I.3. Statement of the Problem...... 8
I.4. Research Objectives ...... 8
I.5. Significance of the Study ...... 8
I.6. Theoretical Framework ...... 9
I.7. Methodology ...... 14
I.8. Scope and Limitations ...... 14
I.9. Thesis Structure ...... 15
CHAPTER II – THE STRATEGIC LOCATION OF THE ARCTIC AND THE IMPORTANCE
OF ARCTIC TOWARDS NORWAY AND OTHER ARCTIC NATIONS ...... 17
II.1. Overview of the Arctic ...... 17
IX
II.1.1. Strategic Location of the Arctic ...... 17
II.1.2. Early Territorial Claims ...... 19
II.1.3. Past and Present Militarization in the Arctic ...... 21
II.1.4. Arctic Council ...... 25
II.2. Overview of the Importance of Arctic to Norway ...... 27
II.2.1. Norway’s National Interest in the Arctic ...... 27
II.3. Overview of the Importance of Arctic to other Arctic Nations ...... 30
II.3.1. Russia’s National Interest in the Arctic ...... 30
II.3.2. US’s National Interest in the Arctic ...... 32
II.3.3. Canada’s National Interest in the Arctic ...... 34
II.3.4. Denmark’s National Interest in the Arctic ...... 35
II.3.5. Sweden’s National Interest in the Arctic ...... 38
II.3.6. Finland’s National Interest in the Arctic ...... 39
II.3.7. Iceland’s National Interest in the Arctic...... 40
CHAPTER III – THE NORWEGIAN DEFENSE POLICY AND THEIR MILITARY POWER
TOWARDS ARCTIC IN COPING WITH MILITARY DEVELOPMENT IN THE REGION
(2013 – 2016) ...... 42
III.1. Norway’s Perception towards the other Arctic Nations ...... 42
III.2. Overview of the Norwegian Defense Policy ...... 47
III.3. Overview of the Norway’s Military Strength ...... 49
III.3.1. Norwegian Armed Forces ...... 49
III.3.2. Norwegian Military Budget/Spending ...... 59
III.3.3. Norwegian Military Objectives ...... 61
CHAPTER IV – THE IMPLEMENTATION OF NORWEGIAN DEFENSE POLICY
TOWARDS ARCTIC IN COPING WITH MILITARY DEVELOPMENT IN THE REGION
X
(2013 – 2016) ...... 65
IV.1. Analyzing the Implementation of Norwegian Defense Policy towards Arctic ...... 65
IV.2. The Implementation of Norwegian Defense Policy towards Arctic (2013-2016) ...... 72
IV.2.1. Norwegian Military Strategy ...... 72
IV.2.2. Norwegian NATO Strategy ...... 73
IV.2.3. Norwegian Military Weaponry/Armed Forces Deployment ...... 75
IV.2.3.1. Air Force ...... 76
IV.2.3.2. Army ...... 78
IV.2.3.3. Navy ...... 80
IV.2.4. Norwegian Military Spending ...... 82
CHAPTER V - CONCLUSION ...... 85
BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 89
XI
LIST OF TABLES
Table I. The Transformation Process in the Collective Mind of an Individual ...... 10
Table II. Concepts of National Security and Defense Policy ...... 11
Table III. Russia’s National Interests ...... 30
Table IV. Main Goals of the Russian Arctic Policy ...... 31
Table V. US’s Arctic Policy ...... 33
Table VI. The Kingdom of Denmark’s Arctic Strategy 2011-2020 ...... 37
Table VII. Norway’s Perception towards Russia ...... 45
Table VIII. Norway’s Manpower ...... 50
Table IX. Norwegian Land Systems ...... 51
Table X. Norwegian Air Power ...... 53
Table XI. Norwegian Naval Power ...... 58
Table XII. Norwegian Military Budget ...... 60
Table XIII. Norway’s Defense Ine Søreide Eriksen in her long-term plan for the
Armed Forces ...... 83
XII
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure I. The Arctic Map/Arctic Circle ...... 2
Figure II. Northwest and Northeast Passages of the Arctic ...... 4
Figure III. Norway Map with Arctic Circle ...... 6
Figure IV. The Arctic Circle ...... 17
Figure V. Denmark and Finland towards Arctic ...... 18
Figure VI. Map of Northern Fleet Bases ...... 22
Figure VII. The Arctic Council ...... 26
Figure VIII. Norway’s Fjords and Svalbard ...... 27
Figure IX. Svalbard Map ...... 43
Figure X. Norwegian Army Bases ...... 51
Figure XI. Ørland airbase ...... 52
Figure XII. Norwegian Air Force Facilities ...... 54
Figure XIII. Norwegian Naval Bases ...... 56
Figure XIV. Haakonsvern Naval Base ...... 57
Figure XV. Russia Border Guards Visit Norway during Joint Military ...... 70
Figure XVI. Norwegian F-35 Aircraft ...... 76
Figure XVII. Bodø Main Air Station ...... 77
Figure XVIII. Norwegian Anti-Tank Weapons ...... 78
Figure XIX. Norwegian Nansen Frigate ...... 80
Figure XX. Norwegian Barentshav OPV ...... 81
XIII
LIST OF ACRONYMS
ACAP = Arctic Contaminants Action Program
ACE = Arctic Challenge
AEPS = Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy
AFV = Armored Fighting Vehicles
ALCM = Air-launched Cruise Missile
AMAP = Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme
BMEWS = Ballistic Missile Early Warning System
BRIG N = Brigade North
CAFF = Conservation of Arctic Flora and FaunaWorking Group
CS = Conventional Support
CSS = Combat Service Support
DEW = Distant Early Warning
EEZ = Exclusive Economic Zone
EPPR = Emergency Prevention, Preparedness and Response Working Group
EU = European Union
GDP = Gross Domestic Product
GIUK = Greenland, Iceland, and the United Kingdom
MLRS = Multiple-Launch Rocket Systems
MRTT = Multi Role Tanker Transport
NATO = North Atlantic Treaty Organization
NOK = Norwegian Krone
NSR = Northern Sea Route
OPV = Offshore Patrol Vessel
XIV
SDWG = Sustainable Development Working Group
SLBM = Submarine-launched ballistic missiles
SPG = Self-Propelled Guns
UN = United Nations
UNCLOS = United Nations Convention on the Laws of Sea
USA/US = United States of America
USD = US Dollar
USSR = Union of Soviet Socialist Republics/The Soviet Union
XV
CHAPTER I
The Problem and Its Background
1. Introduction 1.1. Background
The Arctic, situated in the northernmost area on Earth, is encompassing almost eight percent of the Earth’s surface and is centered on the North Pole. This region has a particular division, dividing the territory of the Arctic named the Arctic Circle and includes the Arctic Ocean that are covered by ice and surrounding lands and seas2.The surrounding lands of the Arctic are parts of the eight Arctic nations which are: Canada, Denmark (via Greenland), Finland, Iceland, Norway (via Svalbard archipelago), the Russian Federation, Sweden and the United States of America (via Alaska). The Arctic emerged as a key strategic area because it constituted an Allies’ supply routes. For example, the USSR, allied power that actively involved in the war, received many resources convoys from the United States of America program named “Lend-Lease” and the Arctic route was the shortest and more direct way to it3. Presently, the discovery phase of the exploration of the Arctic region is over. Today, there remain no unexplored areas, as scientific research yielded reasonably accurate maps and technological progress has made this once indefinable area increasingly accessible. Nowadays, commercial airlines can fly across the North Pole, and the Arctic regions have become the focus of research concerning global warming and climate change. Before any specific discussion on the recent and future development can be made, it’s simply essential to geographically define the Arctic. As the Arctic possesses the Arctic Circle, it makes Arctic as one of the five major circles of latitude that marks maps of the Earth. Since the axis of the earth tends to change, albeit
2The Arctic Circle is an imaginary line that marks the latitude above which the sun does not set on the day of the summer solstice and does not rise on the day of winter solstice. 3“Lend-lease” was a program signed by the USA in 1941. The purpose of the program is t ensure that the U.S would provide weapons and supplies for the Allies. In this period, the U.S was not officially in the war, but just necessarilly supported the fight against Nazism as a way to to stop German expansionism.
1
marginally, from one year to the next, the delineation of the Arctic Circle changes and moves as well at approximately 66o 33’ North of the Equator4.
Figure IThe Arctic Map/Arctic Circle5
Early Territorial Claims, because of scientific exploration of the Arctic, has made Arctic to become increasingly attractive for many nations to claim their rights to territorial sovereignty towards some portions of the region.The main reasons of the conduct of exploration of the Arctic were often combined with scientific, geopolitical, and even commercial purposes with the pursuit of national status. Therefore, Arctic exploration has developed too far that the explorations were not only conducted by Arctic nations such as the United States,
4The delineation of the Arctic Circle approximately from 2012 until present. Accessed online on on 27 November 2016 at https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/arctic-meteorology/arctic.html 5The Arctic Map. Accessed online on 27 November 2016 at http://www.athropolis.com/graphics/arcticmap- temp.gif
2
the Russia, Canada, Denmark-Greenland and Norway, but also by non-Arctoc nations such as Germany, the United Kingdom and Poland6.
Still, most of the territorial claims (the larger ones) were done by the former group of states – mainly the United States, the Soviet Union/Russia and Canada7. As during that time of the first decades of the 20th century, there was not any international statute that would regulate boundaries for all Arctic nations in the region, but the need of having a international statute was not really necessary at that time. All Arctic nations traditionally accepted the sector principle, a version of the doctrine of contiguity, and facilely based their territorial claims on this agreement. The Arctic is a region of essential and increasing geopolitical importance. The Arctic will emerge significantly in geo-strategic importance as global climate change creates Arctic routes more appealing for international merchant shipping in both the Northwest and Northeast passages8.
6The Early Claimants based on timelines. Accessed online on 27 November 2016 at http://www.stimson.org/content/evolution-arctic-territorial-claims-and-agreements-timeline-1903-present 7Arctic, Encyclopedia Britannica. Accessed online on 10 October 2016 at http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/33100/Arctic 8Geostrategic Competition in the Arctic: Routes and Resources. Accessed online on 27 November 2016 at http://soufangroup.com/tsg-intelbrief-geostrategic-competition-in-the-arctic-routes-and-resources/
3
Figure II Northwest and Northeast Passages of the Arctic9
The Northwest Passage has been the long-dreaming wish of mariners, explorers, and merchants for hundreds of years as the global climate change has recently forged a way for them to access. It’s definitely transformed the geopolitical landscape of the Arctic as it has the possibility for lucrative transit to great global shipping industry – in more fierce resources competition10. The Arctic sovereigny issues and the maritime passages will always be a contested hot issue in the international arena as it will continue to emerge steadily as the trigger for resources increases11. The Arctic Nations namely Russian Federations, Canada, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, the US, and Norway have all started to realize the political and economic potentials of this long abandoned and ignored strategic region. The Russians, for example, are in a better strategic position on Arctic claims. They have the world’s largest fleet of icebreakers, four of the nuclear powered (a fifth is under construction), and have been commercializing the less ice-plagued Northeast Passage for the past decades. Meanwhile the
9The Northeast Passage and The Northwest Passage of the Arctic. Accessed online on 27 November 2016 at http://pacificenvironment.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/Arctic-Sea-Route-1wide_newsletter.jpg 10Geostrategic of the Arctic: Driving competitions and contests in the region. Accessed online on 27 November 2016 at http://soufangroup.com/tsg-intelbrief-geostrategic-competition-in-the-arctic-routes-and-resources/ 11Idem.
4
Canadians, have been ambitious in insisting on their sovereignty over the Northwest passage. They run large-scale military operations in their northernmost corners – and so does other Arctic Nations12.
1.2. Identification of the Problem The purpose of this study is to identify what possible outcomes conducted by the Arctic Nations in the Arctic region especially Norway to eliminate recent competition or strengthen their cooperation for the peace reassurance and environmental stability or pursuing their personal goals or interests in the region.Why Militarization of the Arctic is An Important Issue? Because it’s beyond important, it could lead us to the next Cold War or perhaps Hot War. We all know that global warming is decreasing the ice coverage within the Arctic Circle creating the once inaccessible Arctic frontier accessible, the resources there is becoming more and more exploitable and soon to be depleted. The Arctic possesses billions of barrels of oil and gas and other natural resources under it. At present, their value isn’t fully understood or known by many, but as one of the last places on Earth to be exploited for minerals gathering purposes, it’s likely to be a valuable area and states will eventually chasing after the region. And sadly speaking that current international law does not fully address all the issues involved in the region. The complexity arises because there is a large and as well as advance handful of states that have legitimate claims to some parts of the area. Their claims sometimes create conflict.
12The Canadians ambitious on their sovereignty over some portion in the Arctic. Accessed online on 27 November 2016 at http://soufangroup.com/tsg-intelbrief-geostrategic-competition-in-the-arctic-routes-and-resources/
5
13 Norway has a significant role/position in the Arctic. This is believed by those who have lived in the far north of the country – experiencing how it feels like to manage abundant resources and have built up important knowledge regarding the territory14. “For Norway, the High North is not just at the top
of the world; it is at the Figure III Norway Map with Arctic Circle top of our list of foreign- policy priorities,” stated by Norway’s Minister of Foreign AffairsBørge Brende15. The government of Norway will aim to further develop North Norway so that it becomes one of the country’s foremost regions in terms of value creation and sustainability16.“Our policy in the Arctic will build on the extensive efforts of previous governments,” quoted from Prime Minister Erna Solberg17. The government will give priority to the following five areas: international cooperation, the development of a knowledge-based business sector, knowledge development, infrastructre, and emergency preparedness from possible threats
13Figure III: Norway Map with Arctic Circle. Accessed online on 27 November 2016 at http://humanflowerproject.com/images/uploads/Norway-map318.jpg 14Norway’s key position in the region. Accessed online on 27 November 2016 at https://www.regjeringen.no/en/dokumenter/report_summary/id2076191/ 15Statement regarding the importance of Arctic to Norway by Minister of Foreign Affairs Børge Brende. Accessed online on 30 November 2016 at http://hir.harvard.edu/the-arctic-important-for-norway-important-for-the-world/ 16Norway’s key position in the region. Accessed online on 27 November 2016 at https://www.regjeringen.no/en/dokumenter/report_summary/id2076191/ 17Statement of Norway’s Arctic policy by Prime Minister Erna Solberg. Accessed online on 29 November 2016 at https://www.regjeringen.no/globalassets/departementene/ud/vedlegg/nord/nordkloden_en.pdf and a journal titled Norway’s Arctic Policy: Creating value, managing resources, confronting climate change and fostering knowledge by Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs
6
and environmental protection18. As for emergency preparedness from possible threats, Norway has been responding the emerging military activity from other Arctic Nations namely Russia and the US and therefore utilize their armed forces for a military exercise on Norway’s border with Russia and more actions to be conducted. Recently, Norway’s relations with other Arctic Nations were considered to be fine – especially Norwegian and Russian relations. “We continuously put out commitment to the Law of the Sea into practice – we signed a treaty with the Russia on maritime delimination and cooperation in the Barents Sea and the Arctic,” quoted from of Foreign Affairs Børge Brende19. However, in recent years Norwegian military leaders and political leaders have figured significant changes in the security environment as there are increasing concers about Russia. “While not directly labeled as a direct military threat to Norway, Russia’s military modernization and assertive policies in the region have created uncertainty for us,” quoted from Norwegian Chief of Defence, Admiral Haakon Bruun-Hanssen20. Among the Arctic Nations, Norway’s policy remains strongly focused on Russia but it has changed from emphasizing a potential threat to the whole of Norway to the potential for conflicting interests in the Arctic. “The increased military capabilities in the region are mainly subjected a threat against Norwegian territory in the High North therefore we should prepare for whatever outcomes,” stated by Norwegian Minister of Defence Ine Marie Eriksen Søreide21.
18Norway’s key position in the region. Accessed online on 27 November 2016 at https://www.regjeringen.no/en/dokumenter/report_summary/id2076191/ 19Statement from Norwegian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Børge Brende on the commitment to the Law of the Sea. Accessed online on 29 November 2016 at http://hir.harvard.edu/the-arctic-important-for-norway-important-for-the- world/ 20The annual analysis by the Norwegian intelligence service and Norwegian Chief of Defence, Admiral Haakon Bruun- Hanssen did not consider Russia an immediate military threat to Norway however it’s more considered that Russia is quite unpredictable and confident. Accessed online on 29 November 2016 at https://www.sipri.org/sites/default/files/Military-capabilities-in-the-Arctic.pdf and Jane’s Defence Weekly titled ‘Northern recomposure’, 21 October 2015 21Statement released in the office of the Norwegian Prime Minister and Norwegian Ministry of Defence (MOD). Accessed online on 30 November 2016 at http://www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/smk/documents/Reports-and-action- plans/
7
1.3. Statement of the Problem As it already mentioned above regarding the importance of Arctic to Norway, this research is seeking to answer the following question,
“How did Norway implement their Defense Policy towards Arcticin the year of 2013 to 2016 in coping with military development in the region?”
As we all know that the Arctic Nations are currently competing their claims over some portions in the region. Some of the Arctic Nations took soft means to reach their goals meanwhile the others pursued harder means. Norway, in the other hand, has stressed to pursue International cooperation with the Arctic Nations and to implement present international law however it does not necessarily mean that they will not be using armed forces.
1.4. Research Objective The purpose of the author conducting this research is to seek the answer to the question using both analytical and descriptive methods. Through conducting a comparative and effective means towards the essential data, a qualitative analysis would further produce a critical analysis in regards to the problems mentioned through the questions.
1.5. Significance of the Study The research of this study seeks to provide an advanced knowledge and understanding in answering the question mentioned on the statement of the problem and to have a clear sense on what is currently going on in the Arctic, specifically between Arctic Nations namely Russia, Canada, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, the US, and Norway.
8
2. Theoretical Framework 2.1. Concepts of National Security and Defense Policy As this research is mainly focused on the Norwegian defense policy towards the Arctic in coping with military development in the region, one should understand thoroughly about the very concept of national securiy and defense policy. The speed and vast of information exchange and the technology revolution, not to mention the total openness to the others have eliminated the geographical borders. This situation has created a globalized world where no country is able to remain isolated from the global interactions thus create security suspicion. The national security means to dedicate states’ capabilities and national forces including the military capabilities, foreign and internal policy to secure and protect the national security interests22. The national security is core element of building a peaceful and solid national environment. The concept changes and develops in accordance to the variation of threats including global and regional threats as well as the availability of resources and any external threats towards the borders. Threats are probabilistic because they may or may not be carried out23. Threats can be verbal24 and physical25. Verbal threats usually take the form of ‘if-then’ statements26: ‘if’ you do not provide the needs as I ask, I will ‘then’ inflict the following harm on you. Meanwhile, the non-verbal threats will do a physical threat to channel their intent: I may withdraw my ambassadors, put my forces on alert, or move forces to contested borders27. The term “perception” can be definedas a concept that describes the construction of reality in the eyes of an
22Definition of national security. Accessed online on 4 December 2016 at http://www.armee.mr/en/index.php/16- 2012-06-06-23-34-59/904-national-security-and-defense-policy 23Definition of threat. David L. Rousseau, Identity, Power and Threat Perception. (New York: Sage Publications, 2007)Accessed online on 8 December 2016 at http://www.albany.edu/~dr967231/articles/RousseauJCROct2007.pdf 24Verbal threats are conditional statements designed to signal the capacity and intention to inflict harm if desired results are not forthcoming. 25Physical threats are used to communicate the seriousness of their intent to punish undesirable behavior. 26Form of verbal threats. Janice Gross Stein, Threat Perception in International Relations. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013) Accessed online on 4 December 2016 at https://www.surrey.ac.uk/politics/research/researchareasofstaff/isppsummeracademy/instructors%20/Stein%20- %20Threat%20Perception%20in%20International%20Relations.pdf 27Idem.
9
individual involved in foreign policy decision-making. 28 Therefore threat perception as a whole can be defined as the ability to interpret, analyze, and aware of any intentions, signals or information that will harm states’ interests and to provoke conflict or war. Based on Robert O. Tilman, there are five factors influence the threat perception which are; structural dimension, geopolitical system, historical dimension, social-cultural dimension, and economic dimension29. The government perception will affect the foreign policy makers in deciding the formulation of foreign policy/defense policy that provides long-term or short-term national interest.
Table I the Transformation Process in the Collective Mind of an Individual30
PROJECTION TRANSFORMATION PERCEPTION
PROCESS
Dimensions:
1. Structural 2. Geopolitic al 3. Historical
4. Socio- Cultural 5. Economic
28D. Novotny, Torn between American and China; elite perceptions and Indonesian Foreign Policy, The Institute of Southeast Asian Studies (ISEAS): Singapore, 2010, p. 31 29R. O. Tilman, The Enemy Beyond: External Threat Perceptions in the ASEAN Region, The Institute of Southeast Asian Studies (ISEAS): Singapore, November 1984, p. 2 30 R. O. Tilman, The Enemy Beyond: External Threat Perceptions in the ASEAN, November 1984, p. 2
10
Table II Concepts of National Security and Defense Policy31
Peace Defense Policy National Development
Security Armed Democracy Forces
Threat
Perception
The armed forces, in the other hand, are all persons who fight on behalf of a party to a conflict and who subordinate themselves to its command 32 . They are considered to be the solid guarantor of stability and security of a state as well as to support the other elements of a state. Defense policy is defined as a public policy dealing with international security and the military including force as an instrument of policy abroad33. It’s seen as an essential element in the national security in fulfilling the national objective based on the instructions that come as part of the national security policy. Therefore, defense policy and armed forces will always remain the prior objective of both military and political leaders. In order to have peace, development and democracy, a state does need a safe environment, straight policy and strong protector. Defence policy should provide
31 Janice Gross Stein, Threat Perception in International Relations, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. Accessed online on 8 December 2016 at https://www.surrey.ac.uk/politics/research/researchareasofstaff/isppsummeracademy/instructors%20/Stein%20- %20Threat%20Perception%20in%20International%20Relations.pdf 32Definition of armed forces. Accessed online on 8 December 2016 at https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary- ihl/eng/docs/v1_rul_rule4 33Definition of defense policy. Accessed online on 4 December 2016 at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_policy and http://www.encyclopedia.com/history/dictionaries-thesauruses-pictures-and-press-releases/defense-policy
11
top level guidance to public servants as to the purpose, structure and deployment of the armed forces.34
2.2. Concept of Geostrategy There are three essential elements in the dynamics of global politics which are geopolitics, geostrategy and geoeconomic. Three of them are related to one another because in practice, the three can be labeled as ‘one breath’. However, in this research the author will only use the concept of geostrategy in analyzing the Norwegian defense policy towards Arctic in the year of 2013 to 2016 in perceiving the military development in the region. Geostrategy is defined as a branch of geopolitics that is a type of foreign policy guided principally by geographical factors as they constrain or affect political and military planning35. The geostrategy could be in the form of soft(smart) power or hard power. Hard power is often played by Republican party in the US through military meanwhile the Democratic ones tend to apply smart power through democracy, human rights and environment, or various other modes through non-military warfare 36 (asymmetric warfare) like the one applied in the Arab Spring on the Silk Road37. 2.3. Realism The author of this research will use realism to further analyze the implementation of Norwegian defence policy in the Arctic and the behavior of the Arctic Nations involved in the Arctic region. Realism is the major school of thought in international relations theory, hypotheticallyformalizing the real politic statesmanship of early modern Europe. Although a greatlyvaried body of thought,
34David Chuter, Managing Defence in a Democracy: Policy Formulation and Execution, Routledge: New York, 2006, ch. 4 35 Definition of geostrategy. Accessed online on 8 December 2016 at http://www.cssforum.com.pk/css-compulsory- subjects/current-affairs/35498-what-do-geopolitics-geo-strategic-mean.html 36Asymmetric warfare is warfare that is between opposing forces which differ greatly in military power and that typically involves the use of unconventional weapons and tactics (such as those associated with guerrilla warfare and terrorist attacks). 37Arab Spring was a series of anti-government protests and armed rebellions that spread across the Middle East in early 2011. Meanwhile Silk Road was an ancient networ of trade routes that were central to cultural interaction through regions of the Asian continent connecting the East and West from China to the Mediterranean Sea. Accessed online on http://middleeast.about.com/od/humanrightsdemocracy/a/Definition-Of-The-Arab-Spring.htm and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silk_Road
12
it can be interpreted as integrated by the undertanding that world politics isinevitably a field of clashes and tensions among those who are pursuing power38. Realism is a tradition of international theory centered based on four propositions39: 1. The international system is anarchic. There is no single actor exists in the above of other states, states are capable of regulating their own interactions; states have and conduct relations with other states on their own, there is no single high entity that controling them or dictating them. The international system exists in a state of constant antagonism 2. The most significant actors are the states. 3. Unitary and rational actors States work and intend to pursue self-interest meanwhile groups strive to attain as many resources as possible. 4. Survival is the primary concern of all states. States build up military to survive, which may lead to a security dilemma.
In summary, realists think that Mankind is not inherently benevolent but rather self-centered and competitive. This perspective, which is shared by theorists such as Thomas Hobbes, views human nature as egocentric (not necessarily selfish) and conflictual unless there exist conditions under which humans may coexist. It is also disposed of the notion that an individual's intuitive nature is made up of anarchy. In regards to self-interest, these individuals are self-reliant and are motivated in seeking more power. The author of research will use realism to analyze the Arctic Nations namely Russia, Canada, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, the US, and Norway and their behavior and actions in pursuing their interests and agendas in the region.
38Political Realism in International Relations. Accessed online on 20 October 2016 at http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/realism-intl-relations/ 39Four primary assumptions of realism related to the study of International Relations by Kelly-Kate S. Pease (2012). Accessed online on 20 October 2016 at http://internationalrelations.org/realism_in_international_relations/
13
3. Methodology 3.1. Qualitative Research The author of the reserach uses qualitative research in obtaining the important sources and datas in supporting the research. Qualitative research is specifically designed to show a target audience’s range of behavior. 40 It utilizesin-depth studies of people (in the form of small groups) to show and assist the construction of hypotheses. Qualitative research could also be the collection of data through Internet sources, online articles, journals.Meanwhile for the results of qualitative research are more descriptive than predictive.In the present world, qualitative methods in the field of marketing research consist of in-depth interviews conducted with individuals, group discussions; journal exercises; diary; and in- context observations. Why qualitative research works? Because the opportunity to probeenables the researcher to reach beyond initial responses and rationales, also theopportunity to interpret record and observe non-verbal communication (i.e., body language, voice intonation) as forms of respondent’s feedback, which is very valuable and informative during interviews or discussions, and during analysis, as well as to engage respondents in "play" such as projective techniques and exercises, overcoming the self-consciousness that can inhibit spontaneous reactions and comments41.
4. Scope and Limitations Realizing the vast dynamics and military development in the Arctic region, this research would be limited to the implementation of Norwegian defense policy in the Arctic since 2013 and the interactions, positions and actions betweenNorway and the Arctic Nations namely Russia, The United States, Canada, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, and Iceland, specifically on the issue of militarization of the Arctic. This research would also be
40Research Methods, Knowledge Base: Qualitative Measures. Accessed online on 12 October 2016 at http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/qual.php 41Qualitative Research Consultants Association. The Use of Qualitative Research. Accessed online on 12 October 2016 at http://www.qrca.org/?page=whatisqualresearch
14
limited only to the traditional threats which is military. The actors outside Norway and the bordering states would also be limited to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) as the organization also serves as significant players on this issue.
5. Thesis Structure CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION This chapter will discuss and reveal the main aspects of the thesis, including the essential information on the implementation of Norwegian defense policy in the Arctic in 2013 to 2016 in coping with military development in the region as well as the whole purpose of the thesis ranging from background of the study,identification of the problem, statement of the problem, research objective, significance of the study, theoritical framework, methodology, scope and limitations, to the thesis structure itself. This chapter of the thesis seeks to encourage the reader to read further into the thesis.
CHAPTER II THE STRATEGIC LOCATION OF THE ARCTIC AND THE IMPORTANCE OF ARCTIC TOWARDS NORWAY AND ARCTIC NATIONS This chapter will provide precise explanation on the dynamic changes of the strategic location of the Arctic ranging from brief history of Arctic exploration by various explorers, early territorial claims by many nations to claim their rights to territorial sovereignty inthe Arctic region, the past and recent active militarization in the Arctic, the importance of Arctic to Norway to the importance of Arctic to other Arctic Nations.
CHAPTER III THE NORWEGIAN DEFENSE POLICY AND THEIRMILITARY POWER TOWARDS ARCTIC IN THE YEAR OF 2013TO 2016 IN COPING WITH MILITARY DEVELOPMENT IN THE REGION This chapter will introduce the Norwegian defense policy, Norwegian armed forces, the military budget spent during the period of 2013to 2016 towards Arctic, military capabilities as well as their military objectives in the arctic as to have better understanding of Norway’s will make it easier to analyze the implementation of Norwegian defense policy to the region.
15
CHAPTER IV THE IMPLEMENTATION OF NORWEGIAN DEFENSE POLICY TOWARDS ARCTIC IN THE YEAR OF 2013TO 2016 IN COPING WITH MILITARY DEVELOPMENT IN THE REGION This chapter will serve as the main element of this research where a thorough analysis will be explained in analyzing the implementation of Norwagian defense policy towards Arctic in the year of 2013 to 2016 in coping with the military development conducted by Arctic Nations specifically Russia.
CHAPTER V CONCLUSION The conclusion of this thesis will be delivered within this chapter with significant recommendations that may be utilized by readers to enrich their critical view regarding the Norwagian defense policy towards Arctic in the year of 2013 to 2016 as well as the other Arctic Nations.
16
CHAPTER II THE STRATEGIC LOCATION OF THE ARCTIC AND THE IMPORTANCE OF ARCTIC TOWARDS NORWAY AND OTHER ARCTIC NATIONS
II.1. Overview of the Arctic II.1.1. Strategic Location of the Arctic
Arctic’s name is given for the north polar constellation “Arktos” – from Greek language for “bear”.42 The size of it reaches 14.5 million square km (5.5 million square miles), almost exactly the same size as Antartica and humans have inhabited the Arctic for around 20,000 years. The Arctic consists Arctic Ocean that are covered by ice including all Figure 4 The Arctic Circle of Greenland, as a territory of http://www.bakervailmaps.com/media/maps/arctic- circle.gif Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Iceland as well as Russia, the United States(surrounding land). Thereexist different concepts about the region’s borders. It can be described as the area north of the Arctic Circle43 (66° 30’N), which is the specific limit of the midnight sun and the polar night.44 This borderline has no geographical meaning, since it does not correspond to any features of the terrain. The Arctic Circle encompasses through the Arctic Ocean, theScandinavian Peninsula, North Asia, Northern America and
42The Origin of Arctic. Accessed online on 16 December 2016 at http://polardiscovery.whoi.edu/arctic/geography.html 43The Arctic Circle is an imaginary line located at 660 , 30'N latitude, and as a guide defines the southernmost part of the Arctic. Accessed online on 16 December 2016 at http://www.worldatlas.com/webimage/countrys/polar/arctic.htm 44The polar night is the periods when the sun does not set or it does not rise. Arctic, Encyclopaedia Britannica. Accessed online on 16 December 2016 at http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/33100/Arctic
17
Greenland. The land within the Arctic Circle has division each among the eight nations which are: Norway, Sweden, Finland, Russia, the United States (Alaska), Canada, Denmark (Greenland), and Iceland.Alternatively, the Arctic can be defined as the northernmost limit of the stand of trees, which is roughly followed by the isotherm at the boundary of the region where the average temperature for the warmest month does not exceed 10°C.
The Arctic nations possess their own geographic positions over the arctic and as for Denmark, the nations is centrally located in the Arctic. The three parts of the Realm – Denmark, Greenland and the Faroe Islands – share a number of values and interests and all have a responsibility in and for the Arctic region 45 Norway’s position towards the Arctic comprises the northernmost parts of the nation that lie above the Arctic circle. In fact, Norway is being one of the most streched-out nations in the world, reaches from
approximately 58°N to 81°N, so Figure 5 Denmark and Finland towards Arctic
large parts lie north of the Arctic http://www.cosmos.com/tour/northern- highlights-the-arctic-circle/6900/ circle at 66°33′. 46 The Arctic circle passes the mainland of Norway at Saltfjellet, which divides Helgeland from the northern part of Nordland country. Therefore,about half of the Norway lies north towardsthe Arctic circle, together with the whole of Troms and Finnmark counties. The total area of mainland Norway above the Arctic
45Denmark and the Arctic. Accessed online on 16 December 2016 at http://um.dk/en/foreign-policy/the-arctic 46Norway and the Arctic. Accessed online on 16 December 2016 at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_Norway
18
circle is ca. 95,000 km2 (37,000 sq mi).47 The Arctic circle also crosses Finland’s northern regions. On the other hand, somenorthernmost parts of Sweden are also in the Arctic Circle therefore made Sweden one of the Arctic Nations. Iceland is the only sovereign state entirely located in the High North at oceanic crossroads. As for Russia, around one-fifth of Russia's landmass is situated in the north of the Arctic Circle, is one of the Arctic nations.48 The last Arctic Nation is the United States, Alaska, America's Arctic, is situatedbetween Asia, Europe and the Eastern US.49
II.1.2. Early Territorial Claims
It has became a huge temptation for many nations to claim over some portions of the region based on their rights to territorial sovereignty due to the result of mass early scientific exploration towards the Arctic. From the very start, Arctic exploration has been focused on not only geopolitical and scientific purposes, but also for commerical purposes with the pursuit of national reputation in the global world. Thus, Arctic exploration was undertaken not only from the nations bordering with the Arctic (the United States, Russia, Canada, Denmark-Greenland, Sweden, Iceland and Norway) but also from nations such as Germany, Poland and the United Kingdom50. The earliest territorial claims were claimed by the former group of states – namely Russia, the United States and Canada. At the earlier decades of 20th century, there was no international regulation present to regulate all the Arctic nations though it’s best believed that the present of international regulation/statue at that timewas not really urgent/necessary to have one. Basically, all countries traditionally only accepted the principle of Arctic
47Idem. 48Russia and the Arctic. Accessed online on 16 December 2016 at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_policy_of_Russia 49The US and the Arctic. Accessed online on 16 December 2016 at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_policy_of_the_United_States 50E. C. H. Keskitalo, Negotiating the Arctic. (New York: Routledge, 2004). 26
19
Circle51 that were to specify the northern boundaries of each other’s portions in the Arctic. In the past, specifically in the decades of 20th century, international law issued that national claims of sovereignty towards specific areas/regions in the Arctic were to be subjected only if followed by occupation in the form of physical.
The first ever conflict or dispute in the Arctic were between Canada, Russia, the United States, Norway, Denmark, and Iceland began in the 1920s. The tension began when Norway started the acquisition of the Svalbard Archipelago52 which was acknowledged by the Spitsbergen Treaty53 thus gave this nation a title of one of the largest Arctic nations owning a large portion of Arctic area. Meanwhile for Canada, their claim extended up to the Pole which would cover the area between longitudes of 60oW and 141oW including the islands in the middle of the Pole and the northern coast of Canada. Russia made their move by establishing a claim to the area in the middle of both its Asiatic and European parts and the North Pole. With the same method, Norway claimed its sovereign rights to the sector between longitudes of 5oE and 35oE, so did the United States by claiming over the sector between 141oW and 170oW. Though Denmark could also join the rest, claiming its sovereignty over the sector between 60oW and 10oW, however Denmark has satisfied themselves enough with Greenland which was internationally acknowledged as Danishterritory in 1933. The tension is not stopping there, a new additional spice to the conflict over Arctic territory was during the period of Post World War II which arose due to the new security condition when West-East tensions rapidly increased. Previously during the Cold War, all Arctic bordering nations – namely the Soviet Union/Russia, the United States, Iceland, Norway, and Denmark – spit up themselves into the West-
51See footnote number 43. (Arctic Circle) 52The Svalbard islands are located in the Arctic Ocean between North Pole and Norway. Accessed online on 2 January 2017 at https://www.visitnorway.com/places-to-go/svalbard-islands/ 53Spitsbergen Treaty is a treaty to put Spitsbergen under Norwegian sovereignty which was signed 1920 in Versailles. Accessed online on 2 January 2017 at https://www.spitsbergen-svalbard.com/spitsbergen-information/history/the- spitsbergentreaty.html
20
East confrontation framewor. 54 From the Soviet Union/Russia’s perspective, the littoral coast of the Arctic Ocean possessed a significant position in their naval development, supporting the fact that the they had no warm-water ports with direct access to the world’s oceans. 55Meanwhile, the United States had no direct way to respond to this naval threat by the Soviet Union/Russia due to unavailability path to the Arctic waters save for Alaska and therefore had to depend more on mutual agreements with other nations like Denmark, Canada and Iceland to strengthen their defenses.
II.1.3. Past and Present Militarization in the Arctic
Due to the high tension during the World War II, the Arctic region was a total military void. During the emergence of war, its strategic role were mainly being a transit area for the Arctic convoys channeling prior supplies to the Arkhangelsk Soviet Union from the United Kingdom and the United States under the Lend-Lease Act. 56 The region was also subjected to few smaller engagements, for example the Battle of the Barrents Sea57 and the Battle of the North Cape. 58 The Arctic then, started being recognized as the Circumpolar North or known as a potential core of national security interests of several nations not only in the favor for scientific research. 59 This development can easily be identified on the basis of the interaction between these following factors: (1) the developmentsin military technology, including
54Z. Brzezinski, The Framework of East-West Reconciliation. Accessed online on 2 January 2017 at https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/russian-federation/1968-01-01/framework-east-west-reconciliation 55Carina Keskitalo, International Region-Building: Development of the Arctic as International Region, Cooperation and Conflict, 42 (June 2007). 56Lend-Lease Act was the principle means for providing the United States military aid to foreign nations during the World War II. Accessed online on 2 January 2017 at http://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/lend-lease-act 57The Battle of Barrents Sea took place on December 31st where it led to Adolf Hitler ordering the scrapping his entire battle fleet to attack on Nazi-occupied Europe. Accessed online on 2 January 2017 at http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/world-war-two/war-in-the-atlantic/the-battle-of-barents-sea/ 58The Battle of the North Cape took place on the North Sea, December 26th, the great German battleship Scharnhorst was on a mission to sink an Allied supply convoy bound for Russia. Accessed online 2 January 2017 at https://www.warhistoryonline.com/featured/battle-north-cape-utter-destruction-battleship-scharnhorst.html 59Carina Keskitalo, International Region-Building: Development of the Arctic as International Region, Cooperation and Conflict, 34 (June 2007)
21
long range means of delivery and nuclear weapons; (2) the East-West conflict which produced the political framework for the formation of bloc; and (3) the geo-strategic factors specifically to the Arctic region. 60 The first two factors issued a need for deployment areas in general, the universal features of the Arctic explain the particular significance of this region. One thing that is easy to be distinguished from the Arctic region is the fact that Arctic possessed geo-strategic properties of the Circumpolar North which were given the shortest distance between Asia, North America and Europe and thus between the two superpowers during the Cold War period – namely the Soviet Union and the United States.
The Arctic region also started to be recognized as a strategic route for any nuclear attack using or strategic bombers considering that most of the eighty percent of the world’s major industrial production Figure 6 Map of Northern Fleet Bases takes place north of http://masdimensiones.com/wp- content/uploads/2015/08/mapa.jpg 30oN, meanwhile the seventy percent of the world’s vital cities are situated north of 23.5oN.61 The Soviet Union/Russia developed its Northern Fleet based at the Kola Peninsula, in order to make it its most powerful fleet. The Soviet Union was so aspired to be a naval power, but the fact that the nation was being a partly landlocked nation, it faced obvious geographical restrictions in its access to the world’s high seas. The Soviet Union introduced the Delta-class
60Thomas R. Berger, Alexei Rodionov and others, The Arctic: Choices for Peace and Security. (West Vancouver: Gordon Soules Book Publisher Ltd), 114 61Idem.
22
submarines in 1972 that further increased the potential of the Northern Fleet, which previously been highly dependant to the barrier protected GIUK gap (Greenland, Iceland and the United Kingdom), turned out that the Soviet Union did not have to rely on it anymore – Delta Submarines were capable of attacking any target in North America or Europe from the Arctic waters.62 Northern Fleet’s strategic forces to the Arctic Ocean has triggered the United States to transform this region into a military front.63.
The airspace above the Arctic Ocean started to be used for strategic deterrence in the period of 1950s - 1960s. The United States has moved rapidly in order to cope the long-range missile threat by setting up several efforts of early warning systems against attacks from the Circumpolar North. Established between Greenland and Alaska, the Distant Early Warning (DEW) was in cooperation with Denmark and Canada. Three additional efforts of radars were also built in North America: the Pinetree line; the Mid Canada line and the Ballistic Missile Early Warning System (BMEWS).64Other countries like Sweden, even though clearly stated that they not in side to any parties (neutral), also maintaned substantial forces in their nothern areas to guarantee that no nation would be triggered to use their territory to conduct an attack. Same thing goes to Norway, they made specific objectives to guarantee it could react to a Soviet attack as fast as possible.
The year 1980s marked the climax of the militarization process of the Arctic as a centre for the operations of strategic weapon systems. Both the Soviet Union and the United States initiated to utilize submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs). In fact, the SLBMs started to become a crucial role in military strategy for both superpower nations. The UnitedStates possessed over a thousand long-range cruise missiles and squadrons of B-
62Weapons of Mass Destruction, GlobalSecurity.org. Accessed online on 2 January 2017 at http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/russia/667B.htm 63Berger 118 64Arctic, Encyclopaedia Britannica. Accessed online on 2 January 2017 at http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/33100/Arctic
23
52G bombers to carry them. Though the Soviet Union seemed to lag behind in regards to this kind of technology, however the Soviets were also advanced in possession of long-range ALCMs that they attached on their Backfire and Bear H bombers. These missiles were able of reaching most targets situated in Europe, North America and the Soviet Union when launched from the Arctic airspace.65 Arctic has emerged a much stronger need for air and sea defense systems in the region due to developments of offensive military systems in the region. However the only attempt of defense was deploying attack submarines in the region, which resulted an increased military presence in the region even further. After the end of Cold War, some of the Arctic nations started to reduce the usage of forces in their northern areas – mainly because there was an economic challenges faced by the newly established Russian Federation as well as the prior need of the United States to deploy their forces elsewhere. This led to the decreasing priority or urge for major Arctic nations to stay in their defense in the Arctic region. Until the bottom of the 20th century, there was a consensus produced by most countries stated that the North Pole and most of the Arctic Ocean should be addressed as an international territory. Some of the nations started to reinforce their pre- exisiting claims over some portions in the region due to the recent global phenomenon of global warming resulting Arctic to shrink. Some of the nations even started to establish completely new claims.
In 2001, Russia submitted a official submission to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which was a formal claim for an area worth 1.2 million square kilometers that extends from the undersea Lomonosov Ridge and Mendeleev Ridge to the North Pole. 66 Meanwhile in 2006, Norway followed Russia by submitting a formal claim into the United Nations Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf in accordance with the UNCLOS to extend the Norwegian 200 nautical miles
65Oran R. Young, Arctic Politics, (Hanover: University Press of New England 1992). 193-194 66Marsha Walton, Countries in tug-of-war over Arctic resources.
24
zone in three areas of the Arctic.67The claim was backed up by the United Nations commission and therefore the extension was granted resulting a total gain of 235,000 square kilometers. 68 In August 2007, Russia started to intensify their military activity in the Arctic as an interpretation of an attempt to increase its leverage vis-a-vis territorial claims in the region. Russia was also refused to recognize Norway’s right to a 200-nautical-mile economic zone around the Archipelago.69
II.1.4 Arctic Council
When the Cold War met its end, a number of Arctic nations had an idea to establish a forum discussing and addressing environmental concerns in the high North and various other issues needing international cooperation such as tourism and shipping, search and rescue and fisheries management. At first, Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy (AEPS)70 was established in order to protect the environment in the Arctic region – specifically on research. However the effect of AEPS was degrading shortly as it did not provide intensive cooperative and efforts towards significant Arctic matters thus it was really urgent to establish a multilateral cooperation between Arctic nations in the form of forum/council. In 1996, Canadian government stressed the need of an intergovernmental forum to other Arctic nations, thus seconded by the United States.71 The Arctic Council is an intergovernmental forum regulating and promoting coordination, interaction and cooperation among the
67Russian Strategic Bombers Patrol Arctic, Atlantic Oceans, Russian News and Informa-tion Agency Novosti, 20 June 2008. 68Idem. 69Navy Resumes Military Presence Near Spitsbergen, Russian News and Information Agency Novosti, 14 July 2006. Accessed online on 2 January 2017 at http://en.rian.ru/world/20080714/113914174 70Franklyn Griffiths, Rob Huebert and P. Whitney Lackenbauer. Canada and the changing Arctic – Sovereignty, Security and Stewarship. (Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 2011). 36 71Idem
25
Arctic nations, Arctic indigenous people and other Arctic inhabitants towards common Arctic issues.72
In accordance with the Ottawa Declaration, these are the following nations signed aspart of the Arctic Council: Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, the Russian Federation, Sweden and 73 the United States. The Figure 7 The Arctic Council work of the http://arctic-council.org/ Council is carried out in six divisions specifically addressing different type of issues/focuses. They are: The Arctic Contaminants Action Program (ACAP); the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP); the Conservation of Arctic Flora and FaunaWorking Group (CAFF); the Emergency Prevention, Preparedness and Response Working Group (EPPR); the Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment (PAME) Working Group; and, the Sustainable Development Working Group (SDWG). The Arctic Council produces comprehensive environmental, social and ecological assessments through its working groups and has also provided a forum for the two legally binding agreements among the eight Arctic nations – though the Arctic Council is still considered weak in handling the tension and disputes among the Arctic nations.
72The Arctic Council: A backgrounder. Accessed online on 2 January 2017 at http://www.arctic- council.org/index.php/en/about-us 73Ottawa Declaration (1996). Accessed online on 2 January 2017 at https://oaarchive.arctic- council.org/handle/11374/85
26
II.2 Overview of the Importance of Arctic to Norway II.2.1 Norway’s National Interest in the Arctic
Norway has a rich background in regards to Arctic. It is a nation with a strong Northern identity as a significant part of Norway’s population lives north of the Arctic Circle. Since the Arctic is now experiencing a great dynamic developments, it’s not only opening up new chances but at the same time creating challenges for the safety and security of Norwegian people living there. “Diminishing sea ice makes possible increased maritime activity around the Arctic, putting Norway strategically on a
new sea route between Asia and Europe,” Figure 8 Norway's Fjords and Svalbard stated by Mona Elisabeth Brøther, a https://www.expeditions.com/globalas sets/maps/lg/Norways_Fjords_and_Ar 74 Norwegian diplomat and ambassador. ctic_Svalbard.jpg As the melting ice of the Arctic is increasing, Arctic nations cannot close their eyes but to acknowledge that climate change is indeed taking place in this world. The Arctic nations will no longer be separated by the ice but to be connected by the ocean. The ice will no longer become a limit thus making the ocean becomes a highway, opening up new possibilities for transport and trade; research and educations; even threats. This is a reason why Arctic is very vital to Norway as some of the eightypercent of Norway’s ocean are located in the north of the Arctic Circle and almost ninetypercent of Norway’s export revenues are based from
74Mona Elisabeth Brøther is a Norwegian diplomat and ambassador. Quoted from, Norway and the Arctic: The importance of knowledge for sustainable development. P.1
27
economic activity taking place in the sea. “The Arctic waters are our natural home,” stated by Utenriksminister Børge Brende, Norwegian Foreign Affairs Minister.75
Norway believes that those new possibilities are also equal as important to the other Arctic nations, including those neighborhood nations around the cold shores. “We all want to seize the benefits of the opening Arctic, but we must do so in a responsible way,” stressed by Norwegian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Utenriksminister Børge Brende. He further elaborated that Norway, as one of the Arctic nations, also seeked to take an interest in Arctic developments, to present the region. 76 It’s one of the Norway visions to take the changes in the High North responsibly and to unite everyone in the region and beyond and prevent any division. “We will do so by promoting deeper international cooperation situated in the High North, we will make our own policies a model of sustainable business and development and a source of inspiration in the fight against climate change,” Norway’s initiative in the High North stressed by the Minister of Foreign Affairs.77 The High North, for Norway is the top of the list of foreign-policy priorities.
Norway’s stance towards the other Arctic nations is very clear, specifically to Russia, “Our message is clear, we will not accept Russia’s illegal actions,” emphasized by Norway’s Foreign Minister Brende. Norway has been aiming to remain predictable and consistent in their relations to Russia, stressing that both nations’ relations should be based on high respect for international law. Norway’s also highly enthusiast with the presence of Arctic Council and is looking forward to seeing other nations specifically the United States taking a leadership role on Arctic affairs. Norway also welcomes the attainment of new observers from both Europe and Asia to
75Utenriksminister Børge Brende, The Arctic: Important for Norway, Important for the world. (Harvard International Review, 2015). Accessed online on 3 January 2017 at https://www.regjeringen.no/no/aktuelt/arctic_harvard/id2406903/ 76Idem. 77Idem.
28
stress the importance of cooperation rather than competition or conflict. “We want to witness more close cooperation in the High North, not confrontation or competition,” urged by Norwegian Foreign Minister.78 Not to mention, since the Arctic possesses considerable potential for future generations of Arctic citizens, Arctic nations must use it wisely. “That is why Norway aims to promote sustainable business development in the North, sustainable growth is what we want to see in the region,” stated by Norwegian Foreign Minister.
78Idem.
29
II.3. Overview of the Importance of Arctic to other Arctic Nations II.3.1. Russia’s National Interest in the Arctic
To Russia, Arctic is very vital and significant in global politic and natural resources will always be the factor driving Russian policy as they believe economic development is what matters the most and to keep their geopolitical influence. Its resources are mountful with the potential to become a new strategically important channel for a maritime transit passageway. Russia’s territories in the Arctic have amounted around ninetypercent of gas and sixty percent of oil and some that haven’t yet been proven. But there are still more of that, there is up to ninty percent containing hydrocarbon reserves, nickel, copper, cobalt and platinum metals. 80 This is why the significant importance of the Arctic to Russia and the rapidly growing international presence in the region, has successfullytriggered Russia’s ambitions in the region to officially declare its stance as a central Arctic nation as clear as possible by economic, political and Russia’s National Interests militarymeans. “Moscow’s Natural Maritime objective is to strengthen Resources Transport Russia’s role as a leading
Arctic power,” stated by Barbora Padrtová, Table III Russia's National Interest79 Russian security and foreign policy analyst.81
Russian armed forces have conducted several efforts to show Russia’s determination to lead the region, as part of Russia’s effort to build a strong
79Russia’s National Interests. Accessed online on 5 January 2017 at http://www.scrf.gov.ru/documents/15/98.html 80Osnovy gosudarstvennoi politiki Rossiiskoi Federatsii v Arktike na period do 2020 goda i dalneishuiu perspektivu, 2008, Sovet Bezopasnosti Rossiiskoi Federatsii. Accessed online on 5 January 2017 at http://www.scrf.gov.ru/documents/15/98.html 81Barbora Padrtová, Russian Approach Towards the Arctic Region. Accessed online on 4 January 2017 at http://cenaa.org/analysis/russian-approach-towards-the-arctic-region/
30
presence in the Arctic. Russia has set its strategic priorities and national interests in the Arctic and its Arctic policy is primarily based on two vital documents which are: the fundamentals of state policy of the Russian Federation in the Arctic for the period up to 2020 and beyond82 and; maritime doctrine of the Russian Federation for the period up to 2020. 83 Russia’s national interests in the Arctic are tied with natural resources and maritime transport as its ultimate objective is to make the Arctic a leading strategic base for natural resources by 2020.84
Russian Arctic Policy: Main Goals in the Region •Increasing extraction of the natural resources in the Arctic •Developing infrastructure and communication management towards the Northern Sea Route. •Defending the resources situated in the the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and the continental shelf. •Ensuring that the free access is maintained towards the Russian fleet to the Atlantic. •Utilizing Russia's decisive role of the Northern fleet for national defense. •Increasing the importance of the Northern Sea Route for sustainable development.
Table IV Main Goals of Russian Arctic Policy85 The role of energy reserves and clear stance in the world affair is stressed as well in the National Security Strategy that was previously adopted in May 2009. Russia has also made various moves to indicate the seriousness of this nation to control the Arctic. The actions made by Russia have clearly emphasized the strategic importance of the Arctic to Russia’s wealth as a
82Osnovy gosudarstvennoi politiki Rossiiskoi Federatsii v Arktike na period do 2020 goda i dalneishuiu perspektivu, 2008, Sovet Bezopasnosti Rossiiskoi Federatsii. Accessed online on 5 January 2017 at http://www.scrf.gov.ru/documents/15/98.html 83Morskaya doktrina Rossiiskoi Federatsii na period do 2020 goda, 2001, President Rossiiskoi Federatsii V.Putin, 27.7.2001. Accessed online on 5 January 2017 at http://stra.teg.ru/library/strategy/4/2 84Idem. 85Idem.
31
main source of revenue primarily in energy production and Russia’s position in the region. As for maritime transport, Russia values the Northern Sea Route so much as it is included in one of the interests highlighted in a recently adopted strategic documents. Northern Sea Route (NSR) or Northeast Passage is one of the two main sea routes of the Arctic Ocean that opens to shipping for more or less 5 months per year.86 Moscow intends to build anddevelop system of management of communications and infrastructure for the NSR to secure the transit-way known as Euro-Asiatic transit. 87 Russia has made it clear that NSR will always be a national transportation route under Russia’s jurisdiction as stated in Osnovy 200888and any actions by other Arctic nations to interupt or violate the NSR’s legal status would definitely be in clash with Russia’s national interest.89
II.3.2 US’s National Interest in the Arctic
The Arctic has been one of major contributor to the United States’ national policy since the purchase of Alaska from Russia in the year of 1867. Shortly after the purchase, US’s interests towards the Arctic were economic development and national security. While this remains true today, a lot of things has changed in the international arena, scientific and technological developments, environmental and increasing global interdependence have given a path to new opportunities and priorities for the Arctic Nations, especially the United States. The States also is an active member of the Arctic Council.90 The United States accepted the role of becoming the Arctic Council Chairmanship for the term of 2015-2017. The currently adopted U.S. Arctic policy is in accordance with the 2009
86Northern Sea Route. Accessed online on 6 January 2017 at http://cenaa.org/analysis/russian-approach-towards-the- arctic-region/ 87Idem. 88Idem. 89Zysk, Katarzyna, 2010, Russia’s Arctic Strategy, Ambitions and Constraints, (Norwegian Institute for Defence Studies, 2010) Accessed online on 6 January 2017 at http://www.ndu.edu/press/lib/images/jfq-57/zysk.pdf 90Idem.
32
National Security Presidential Directive 66 – Homeland Security Presidential Directive 25.91It stresses on sustainable development andprotection towards environment with specific focus on the role of indigenous people and other Arctic residents. Specially for the Arctic, the United States has the 2013 National Strategy for the Arctic Region 92 that implement the 2009 Arctic policy by setting an example, synchronizing, and prioritizing three main priorities of effort to: 1. Maintain international cooperation among Arctic nations 2. Defend U.S. national and homeland security interests 3. Promote responsible stewardship
U.S. Arctic Policy Objectives •Meeting U.S. national security needs. •Protecting the Arctic environment and conserving its living resources. •Ensuring economic development in the region and environmentally-sustainable natural resources management. •Strengthening relations with the Arctic nations (the US, Denmark, Canada, Finland, Iceland, Russia, Norway, and Sweden). •Enhancing research and scientific activities on local, regional, and global environmental issues. •Involving the Arctic's indigenous communities in any discussion directly or indirectly affect them.
Table V US's Arctic Policy93
91National Security Presidential Directive/NSPD (66 and 25), (The White House Office of the Press Secretary, 2009) Accessed online on 6 January 2017 at https://www.nsf.gov/geo/plr/opp_advisory/briefings/may2009/nspd66_hspd25.pdf 92National Strategy for the Arctic Region, (The White House Washington, 2013). Accessed online on 7 January 2017 at https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/nat_arctic_strategy.pdf 93US’s Arctic Policy. Accessed online on 6 January 2017 at https://www.state.gov/e/oes/ocns/opa/arc/
33
II.3.3 Canada’s National Interest in the Arctic
Similar like the other Arctic nations, the Arctic is also vital to Canada’s national identity. Some of the parts of Arctic are the central to many Canadians, including indigenous people that reside across the Yukon, Nunavut and the Northwest Territories, and the northern parts of many Canadian provinces. The region also carries great potential for the future of Canada. Thus exercising sovereignty over Canada’s North as over the rest of Canada, is the number one Arctic foreign policy priority. Canada’s vision towards the Arctic articulates how the Government of Canada will exercise their Arctic foreign policy using leardership and stewardship – definitely elaborates on how Canadian pursue their interests in the Arctic. Canada’s vision for the Arctic are;94 1. Becoming a stable nation in the Arctic. 2. Rules-based region with clearly defined boundaries. 3. Possess a dynamic economic trade and growth. 4. Becoming a vibrant Northern communities. 5. Providing a healthy and productive ecosystem in the region
In regards to the recent opportunities and challenges that are happening in the region, Canada has as well made a move to respond to those opportunities. Canada has launched an ambitious Northern Strategy that shows where Canada is doing action to proceed its national interests both internationally and domestically. Canada will urge the Northern governments and Permanent Participants as well as the indiginous people to make sure that the Arctic Council continues to act responsive to the region’s challenges as well as opportunities while still pursuing their national interests in the region. Canada believes that the Council is in urgent need to be strengthened in order to
94Canada’s vision towards the Arctic. Accessed online on 7 January 2017 at http://www.international.gc.ca/arctic- arctique/arctic_policy-canada-politique_arctique.aspx?lang=eng
34
ensure that it is backed up with the power to cope future threats or challenges. However Canada is dedicated to act on several fronts to ensure the region is secured and their interests are pursued which are;95 1. Canada will further aim a greater policy dialogue within the Council and will play as a proactive role to encourage the adaptation of guidelines, best practices, and the negotiation of policy instruments. The nation is also firm to make sure that the research activites conducted within the Council to continue to focus on the emerging issues. 2. Canada will show the path on efforts to develop a more strategic communications role for the Arctic Council. 3. Canada will create bond and work with other Arctic nations to address the structural needs of the organization. Through their Arctic foreign policy, Canada will deliver their Northern Strategy on the international dimension while ensuring that Canadian interests and values are still maintained.
II.3.4 Denmark’s National Interest in the Arctic
The Arctic is also very vital to the Kingdom of Denmark and the nation has recently become an influential player and vital player in the region. Denmark is one of the Arctic state because Greenland is part of the Danish realm and without it, Denmark would not have the chance to be in the same table with great nations such as Russia, the United States, and Canada. Denmark’s perspective towards the Arctic had been more focused on Greenland.96 The widened and broadened of Arctic challenges and opportunities are not only affecting the US, Russia, Norway and the other major Arctic nations, Denmark is also get affected and therefore produce immediate responses towards the development of the Arctic. The existence of the Danish Realm is
95Canadian Arctic foreign policy. Accessed online on 7 January 2017 at http://www.cfr.org/arctic/statement-canadas- arctic-foreign-policy/p32089 96Jon Rahbek-Clemmensen, ‘Arctic Turn’ in Denmark’s foreign policy. Accessed online on 7 January 2017 at http://www.thearcticinstitute.org/denmarks-strategic-interests-in-the-arctic-its-the-greenlandic-connection-stupid/
35
what legitimizes Denmark’s presence in the Arctic. Thus, it should be an essential part of Denmark’s strategy to improve the current relationship with Greenland. This can be done through a more open, honest, and equal dialogue; more mutual knowledge exchange; emphasizing and encouraging common values and relationships; and by giving higher economic priority to the Arctic.97 Denmark has its own Arctic policy known as ‘The Kingdom of Denmark’s Strategy for the Arctic 2011-2020’ and it was adopted by the Government of the Faroe Islands and the Government of Greenland as well as the Government of Denmark. The Arctic policy was launched by the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs in August 2011. 98 The Arctic policy is very thorough that it covers all related and relevant fields in very substantial detail.
97Idem. 98Lassi Heininen, Danish Arctic Strategy. Accessed online on 7 January 2017 at http://www.geopoliticsnorth.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=157:danish-preliminary-arctic- strategy&catid=40&Itemid=108
36
The Kingdom of Denmark’s Arctic Strategy 2011-2020 has two main objectives which are:99 (1) to respond and react to the significant geopolitical and environmental developments in the Kingdom of Denmark’s Arctic Arctic and the emerging Strategy 2011-2020 global interests by To react and To Arctic nations in the respond to the redefine a region, and; (2) to significant (new) restate a (new) position geopolitical position for the Kingdom of and for the Denmark and empower environmental Kingdom the nation’s stance as developments of one of the Arctic in the Arctic Denmark nations.The Kingdom of and the and Denmark’s Arctic emerging empower Strategy 2011-2020 also global interest the addresses these in the region nation’s following three stance as objectives which are: one of the enhance maritime Arctic safety; resolve maritime nations.
disputes among the Table VI The Kingdom of Denmark's Arctic Strategy 2011-2020
Arctic nations in http://www.geopoliticsnorth.org/index.php?option=com_content&vi accordance with the ew=article&id=157:danish-preliminary-arctic- strategy&catid=40&Itemid=108 existing international law; and undertake surveillance and enforce sovereignty. Overall, the strategy is a vital milestone towards 2020 and beyond and to make sure its implementation, the Strategy stresses on an intention to establish a cross- disciplinary committee for the Arctic Strategy and its evaluation.100
99Idem. 100Idem.
37
II.3.5 Sweden’s National Interest in the Arctic
The recent changes and developments in the Arctic region have given a significant impact for the Swedish Government in several different areas and Sweden is expected to make immediate measures to produce a political strategy towards those developments in the Arctic region. First of all, Sweden is one of the Arctic nations that possesses key interests in the region and carries an important position in both bilateral and multilateral dialogue. What is it that Sweden want from the Arctic? Basically, Sweden started to have interest in the Arctic at the year on 1732 when the very first research in the Arctic was conducted. After the first research conducted then followed with more research to know better about the region and how it was connected with Sweden. Sweden’s main interest in the Arctic was basically on Spitsbergen or now more commonly reffered to as Svalbard. An intensive Arctic research was pursued in the region from the mid-nineteenth century onwards.101 The Swedish government adopted Sweden’s Arctic Strategy in May 2011 and the document covers the explanation to the question of the importance of Arctic strategy is needed which is the one reason is because global warming is happening and the lives of indigenous people there are endangered. The document also covers the importance and the urgency of well-functioning multilateral cooperation on the Arctic is very significant for Sweden thus becoming the main priority. The document also states three main priorities in the Arctic region which are:102 1. Economic Development 2. Climate and Environment and, 3. The Human Dimension
101Swedish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Sweden’s Strategy for the Arctic Region, Department for Eastern Europe and Central Asia, Arctic Secretariat: Sweden, 2011, p.12 102Lassi Heininen, Sweden’s Strategy for the Arctic Region: priorities and objectives, University of Lappland: Iceland, 2011. Accessed online on 7 January 2017 at http://www.geopoliticsnorth.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=186:swedens-strategy-for-the- arctic-region&catid=43&Itemid=110
38
Overall, Sweden’s Arctic Strategy focuses utmost the key aspects of a modern political strategy, specifically in terms of applying concrete goals under each priority. The Arctic policy also represents a response and a reflection of recent significant changes and developments in the region as equal as the emerging global interests and pressure from the other Arctic nations and other non- Arctic nations.
II.3.6 Finland’s National Interest in the Arctic
Finland is one of the Arctic nations because geographically speaking, Finland is situated between the East and the West as well as above the Arctic Circle, even though it has no path/way to the Arctic Ocean.103 With that being said, Finland has had several interests ranging from environmental, cultural, political and economic interests to security interests in the Arctic region. Regarding a statement from an official, “Finland has a primordial interest toward Arctic issues. Our geography and history make us an Arctic state.”104 This was backed up by a report on ‘Finland and the Arctic Regions’ published by the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Finish Parliament 105, as well as supported by general dialogue of Finland’s activities in the Arctic at Parliament in November 2009. Eight relevant findings which shows that Finland is part an Arctic and Northern European State:
1. The strategy is thorough and ambitious, definitely reflects the great efforts of Finland in preparing its very first Arctic strategy. 2. The four main sectors listed in the Strategy are in accordance with Finland’s long-term national, economic and particularly political interests in the region. 3. The strategy showsFinland’s intention to strengthen its position as an international expert towards Arctic matters.
103Lassi Heininen, Foreign Policy Interests of Finland in the Arctic, P.110 104Mäkeläinen-Buhanist, Soili. “Finland’s approach to the Arctic; The past and the future”. Statement by Ms Soili Mäkeläinen-Buhanist, Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland (Ottawa, Canada: May 27, 2010) 105Ulkoasiainvaliokunta, Ulkoasiainvaliokunnan ietintö 12/2009 vp – Sumi ja arktiset alueet”
39
4. The Strategy stresses the special features and risks of fragile Arctic ecosystems that it’s urgent to take measure in ensuring protection of ecosystems of the Arctic. 5. The Strategy is also best to make a priority on external relations 6. The Strategy covers the visions concerning indigenous people, specifically those who live in the Barents Region and their active presence in international cooperation. 7. The Strategy emphasizes that the Arctic is a peaceful and stable region and that Finland supports the “non-conflictual rules”.106 8. Finally, the Strategy stresses the vital role of the European Union in the Arctic region and that the EU’s policy should be further upgraded.107
II.3.7 Iceland’s National Interest in the Arctic
Iceland is geographically located by the Arctic Circle, therefore is one of the Arctic nations. The nation relies more on the fragile resources that are situated in the Arctic region such as tourism, industries of fishing as well as energy production. Therefore, it’s very essential that Iceland will do whatever it takes to secure its position as a coastal state among other coastal states in the region.108 As the only sovereign state that is entirely located in the High North at oceanic crossroad and a Coastal State in the Arctic, Iceland possesses strong ecological, economic and political connections to the Arctic region. Iceland is also an active contributor and participant in Arctic cooperation and research. Iceland also has its own Arctic Policy which was agreed by Althingi on March 28 2011. The Arctic policy stresses on the need to secure Icelandic interests with regard to the environmental matters, natural resources, climate change, social development and navigation plus stresses on the importance of
106Stubb, Alexander. “A New Arctic Era and Finland’s Arctic Policy”, Keynote speech in the 20th Anniversary Seminar of the Arctic Centre, 29th September 2009, Alexander Stubb, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Finland. (mimeo) 107Prime Minister’s Office, Finland’s Strategy for the Arctic Region, Prime Minister’s Office Publications 8/2010: 45. 108Althingi, “A Parliamentary Resolution on Iceland’s Arctic Policy”, 28th March 2011. Accessed online on 8 January 2017 at https://www.mfa.is/media/nordurlandaskrifstofa/A-Parliamentary-Resolution-on-ICE-Arctic-Policy-approved- by-Althingi.pdf
40
maintaining strong cooperation with other Arctic nations, stakeholders and indigenous people in the region. Iceland’s Arctic Policy has twelve principles which are:109 1. Promoting and empowering the Arctic Council on Arctic matters and stresses on having international decisions that are responsive on Arctic matters happening in the region. 2. Securing Iceland’s role and national interests within the Arctic. 3. Promoting a sense that the Arctic extends both to the part of the North Atlantic Ocean and to the North Pole which is closely connected to it. 4. Ensure that exisiting international law (UNCLOS) forms the basis for the settlement of possible conflicts. 5. Strengthening cooperation with Greenland (Denmark) and the Faroe Islands on Arctic matters. 6. Supporting the indigenous people’s rights . 7. Promoting deeper international cooperation and agreements with other Arctic nations as well as stakeholders. 8. Using all available meants to cope human-induced climate change. 9. Safeguarding the security interests in the Arctic region performed through civilian efforts. 10. Developing more comprehensive trade relations among Arctic nations in the region. 11. Advancing Icelanders’ knowledge towards Arctic matters. 12. Increasing cooperation and consultations at the domestic and international level.
109Idem.
41
CHAPTER III THE NORWEGIAN DEFENSE POLICY AND THEIR MILITARY POWER TOWARDS ARCTIC (2013 – 2016) IN COPING WITH MILITARY DEVELOPMENT IN THE REGION
III.1. Norway’s Perception towards Russia
Arctic has recently become a focus forpolitical intentions and interests among the Arctic nations and possess significant geopolitical importance thus tensions and conflicts are arising in the region. The Arctic nations have their own specific actions issued in the region and are always be the vital key to the start of a particular conflict. Those actions are closely interconnected to how the given conflict is perceived by the actors involved. Thus, even though a particular tension possesses a minor conflict potential, it’s back to the perception of the state to interpret that conflict potential – either it will be perceived as big or small conflict potential by that particular state. The question then arises whether or not the states prefer in using realism approach and classical geopolitics, perceiving the current status-quo in the Arctic as a zero-sum game, or whether or not the states are perceiving the current status-quo in the Arctic as a non- zero-sum game. The tensions and conflicts rise in the region are closely interconnected with the character and behavior of state interests – how singnificant importance of the region is for a particular state; whether the involved Arctic nations are mainly interested in the mountful resources that Arctic has or whether the issues are based in national security and prestige.
Norway, as one of the Arctic nations, possesses a major role in the Arctic beside the United States and Russia. The state has been in align with Law of the Sea and respected international cooperation as Norway sees that those two elements are very crucial in promoting stability and eliminating unpredictable threats in the north – north of Norway possesses massive potential for value creation thus Norway will act firm if the High North is endangered. In regards to the vital of the High North for Norway’s
42
geopolitical standing in the world and economic development, any threats or challenges to the stability of the region or to Norway’s national interests will be regarded as of foremost importance for Norway’s defense policy. Norway, among the other Arctic Nations, is one of the Arctic nations that prioritize the importance of deeper international cooperation and to make High North as stepping
stone to unite everyone in the Figure 9 Svalbard Map
region in preventing any division http://images.summitpost.org/original/710879.jpg and to use military as the very last resort. However, in regards of recent illegal actions issued by Russia in the region, has set Norway to be firm in stopping Russia’s illegal actions. Towards rest Arctic nations (the United States, Canada, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, and Iceland), Norway perceived them differently as they are not considered as an aggressor in the region compared to Russia – the rest seven Arctic nations uphold the same value with Norway in the region which is to embrace deeper international cooperation.110
Russia is the major important actor that is currently being anticipated by Norway in the High North, both in regards to the hard security issues and the soft security issue. “The Russian military are acting in a challenging way along our borders,” stated by Norwegian Defense Minister Ine Søreide Eriksen. Soft security issues are those threats and challenges that are linked to the mass exploitation of natural resources and a high maritime transportactivities in the High North.111 The soft security issues occur evenly to industrial activities that could harm the Arctic region as well as activities that possess harm the health and human life. Norway, as a state that aims to be
110Brzezinski, Matthem, 2013, ‘Who’s afraid of Norway?’, (The New York Times Magazine, 2013). Accessed online on 21 January 2017 at http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/24/magazine/who-s-afraid-of-norway.html 111Gotkowska, Justyna, 2014, Norway and the Bear, Norwegian Defence Policy:Lessons for the Baltic Sea Region, (Ośrodek Studiów Wschodnich im. Marka Karpia Centre for Eastern Studies, 2014)
43
an example among the other Arctic nations as well as to implement its sovereignty and jurisdictions rights in the region, it’s very essential for Norway to patrol and monitor the maritime areas – plus providing rescue unis/capabilities when needed and potent maritime research. 112 Meanwhile the hard security issues are those threats and challenges that are connected to the greatly contentious legal regime of the maritime areas throughout Svalbard archipelago 113 . Two concerns exist regarding the hard security issues happening in the High North which are first, concern over illegal fishing that will be conducted within Norway’s 200-mile fisheries protection zone around Svalbard, primarily because the zone is not yet acknowledged by Russia. Over the past few years, Norway has been arresting several Russian trawlers where Norway claimed that they were fishing illegaly inside the conservation zone.114Second concern might appear from the mass exploitation activites over natural resources on the continental shelf around Svalbard – though the are remain unexplored by any other Arctic nations and Norway. Thus if some significants inputs/resources are to be found in the region, the signatories of Svalbard Treaty (primarily Russia) could issue non-discriminatory access to value creation and further exploration, and Russia could demand paying the extremely low Svalbard tax compared to the Norwegian tariffs which is more higher.115 Once again, that makes Norway to stay uneasy in regards to Russia’s actions and the need to defend Norway’s sovereign rights over the continental shelf around Svalbard.
Russia, beside having to possess great danger on both hard and soft security issues, is also a potential aggressor and has been showing its aggresiveness since 2007. In the year of 2007, the state continued flights of its strategic bombers near the Norwegian
112Jonas Gahr Støre, ‘The High North and the Arctic: The Norwegian Perspective’, The Arctic Herald, 2/2012. Accessed online on 13 January 2017 at , http://www.regjeringen.no/nb/dep/ud/aktuelt/taler_artikler/jgs_taler_artikler/2012/nord_arktis.html?id=685072 113Svalbard archipelago is located in the Arctic Ocean, halfway between Norway and the North Pole. Accessed online on 13 January 2017 at https://www.visitnorway.com/places-to-go/svalbard-islands/ 114The Norwegian Coast Guard, or Kystvakten, is part of the Royal Norwegian Navy, and is therefore subordinate to the Ministry of Defence. Its primary mission is to monitor the fisheries within the Norwegian economic zone and inside thefisheries protectionzone around Svalbard.Onone occasionin2005 after Norwegian inspectors boarded a Russian fishing boat,the boat’s captain decided to head back to a Russian port, with the inspectors still onboard. 115Fløistad, Brit, 2008, ‘Controversy over the Legal Regime outside Svalbard’s Territorial Waters’, (DNAK Security Brief, 2008), (FOCUS NORTH, 2008), The Norwegian Atlantic Committee. Accessed online on 13 January 2017 at http://www.atlanterhavskomiteen.no/files/atlanterhavskomiteen.no/Documents/Publikasjoner/Fokus%20Nord/FN%2 06-2008.pdf
44
airspace.116 Not far from that in the mutual year on the North Pole seabed, a Russian expedition planted a Russian flag – blatantly showing Russia’s intentions and claims in the area.117 With that being said, Norway completely aware that Russia will do whatever it takes (primarily using force) to protect and pursue its national interests and to gain influence in its neighbourhood. Norway then has started to focus its attention on the High North, perceiving several possibilites that Russia will act.
Norway's Perception towards Russia: • Russia's efforts to disrupt the Norwegian interpretation towards the sovereign rights and jurisdiction around Svalbard, which escalate to military crisis both deliberately or accidentally; • Russia's efforts to test out Norway's determination in defending its jurisdiction and sovereign rights in the High North (areas aroundSvalbard); • Russia's unpredicable move in their attempt to find out NATO's willingness and response to assist its member states (comprising Norway) through military and political action in responding several crisis phenomenons; • Russia's pressure towards Norway (including military action) in order to force Norway into taking several decisions in the High North.
Table VII Norway's Perception towards Russia118 Seeing Norway’s perception towards Russia, the possible scenario would be; if Russia is willing to demonstrate its powerful determination in response to a already- worsening situation in the region or in response to possible clashes with other Arctic nations that will be dragging Norway in or harming Norway’s national sovereignty and interests, Norway would likely to change its security, economic, or defense polity that arguably could possess a vital impact (probably the negative ones) on Russia’s national
116See 110. 117Idem. 118Idem.
45
interests. 119 “We must be prepared to face possible crises or incidents ignited by Russia”, stressed by Ine Søreide Eriksen, Norwegian Defense Minister.
119See 110.
46
III.2. Overview of the Norwegian Defense Policy
In regards to possible and potential tensions in the Norwegian High North, Norway has been aiming a greater defense policy focussed on cooperation and deterrence. The state has a key position in the Arctic, specifically in the High North. Thus any threats and challenges that could damage the value creation and Norwegian national interests in Norwegian High North will be seen as a significant importance for Norway’s defense policy. Norway’s cooperation policy mainly focuses on increasing cooperation and relation as well as building trust with Arctic nations, primarily Russia both in wider community of Arctic nations and bilateral relations.120 Meanwhile, the deterrence policy focuses in several goals: strengthening military cooperation with the United States; building up Norway’s own defense capabilities; strengthening NATO’s credibility as a collective defense alliance; and developing military and political co- operation across Northern Europe.
“The primary objective of our defense policy is to minimize the likelihood of crises and conflicts in the High North that could prove too ‘big’ for Norway but too ‘small’ for NATO” stated by Gen. Sverre Diesen, Norway’s Chief of Defense (2005-2009).121
If to discuss about a relatively ‘little’ crisis, Norway with quite relatively weak in military capabilities and interpretation around Svalbard, not to mention Norway still possess uncertainties towards NATO’s potential response, could find itself losing to the crisis. Nonetheless, the Norwegian deterrence policy that is currently pursued by Norway is different in quality compared to the deterrence policy applied during Cold War era. It’s believed that joint military presence between Norway and NATO is visualized as a stabilizing factor in preventing any possible and potential threats. With
120Gotkowska, Justyna, 2014, Norway and the Bear, Norwegian Defence Policy:Lessons for the Baltic Sea Region, (Ośrodek Studiów Wschodnich im. Marka Karpia Centre for Eastern Studies, 2014) 121Gen. Sverre Diesen, Norway’s Chief of Defence (2005-2009), in an interview with ANB-NTB, ‘Vil ha proffer forsvar’. Accessed online on 14 January 2017 at http://www.an.no/nyheter/article6727944.ece
47
that being said, Norway only wish one thing to disrupt the security and stability of the Norwegian High North by alarming a military activity.122
The principles within the current defense policy gain cross-party consensus in Norway and the outcomes of the policy have turned out to be positively well-received. Conducted in September 2013, the primarily elections is unlikely to bring major changes or shifts to the policy as in the year of 2013, the Norwegian Parliament recognized the Long-Term Defense Plan 2013-2016 arranged by the Norwegian Defense Minister.123 The Long-Term Defense Plan 2013-2016 has several main priorities on Norway’s defense policy and its future direction for Norwegian armed forces reform. With that being said, the Conservative Party aims to pay more attention to defense matters compared to the previous social democratic government led by Jens Stoltenberg.124 Even though there were no major changes in the shifting of the parlieament, if little changes are made it will be focusing to increase defense spending and address the lacking military capabilities of Norway in the High North. The coalition government also may aim to strengthen Norway’s ties with one of the strong Arctic nations which is the United States and somehow increase Norway’s role in NATO’s operations.125
“With the Long-Term Defense Plan 2013-2016, we hope to achieve stability in our Northern areas, deeper cooperation with the United States and major role in NATO’s operations,” Stated by Norway's Minister of Defence Ine Søreide Eriksen126
122Sven C. Holtsmark, 2009, ‘Towards cooperation or confrontation? Security in the High North’, Research Paper No. 45, (NATO Defense College, 2009), p. 11. Accessed online on 14 January 2017 at , http://www.ndc.nato.int/research/series.php?icode=1 123See 119. 124Jens Stoltenberg served as Prime Ministers of Norway from 2005 to 2013. 2009 was his second term elected as Prime Minister. Accessed online on 14 January 2017 at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jens_Stoltenberg 125‘Politisk platform for en regering utgått av Høyre og Fremskrittspartiet’, 2013 , pp. 39-40. Accessed online on 14 January 2017 at http://www.hoyre.no/filestore/Filer/Politikkdokumenter/plattform.pdf 126Ine Marie Eriksen Søreide is currently served as Norwegian Minister of Defense from Conservative Party since 2013 until present. Accessed online on 14 January 2017 at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ine_Marie_Eriksen_S%C3%B8reide
48
III.3. Overview of the Norway’s Military Strength III.3.1. Norwegian Armed Forces
In order to perform all the vital tasks of the armed forces, primarily the defense of the territorial integrity and political sovereignty, Norway is advancing a series of brand new military power and upgrading others that need to be upgraded for the sake of safeguarding Norwegian interests in the northern areas. The Long-Term Plan for the Norwegian Armed Forces for the period of 2013-2016 remained in place the work of empowering defense forces resumed. The Norwegian Defense has three divisions which are: the Army; the Navy; and the Air Force.
Army. Norway is a vast land with so much valuable interests and entities to protect. The Norwegian Army ensures the values situated on the ground and maintain peace of mind for Norwegian people from national and international conflict areas. The primary task of the Norwegian Army is to guard the border with Russia; to provide land-based defense against any potential invasion; to maintain a presence in the rest of the nation to cope any minor incursion; to contribute a battalion for NATO’s implementation forces; to highly participate in UN peacekeeping forces which contributing around 1,600 men; and to support the civil community.127Brigade Nord (Brig N) is the vital element of Norwegian Army which is its independent mechanized brigade, consisting one light infantry battalion, two mechanized maneuver battalions, and conventional combat support (CS) and combat service support (CSS) units (engineer, artillery, logistics, and medical units).128 The Long- Term Plan for the Norwegian Armed Forces for the period of 2013-2016
127Royal Norwegian Army. Accessed online on 14 January 2017 at http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/no-haren.htm 128Idem.
49
demands an increased flexibility and reactivity of the Army with three battalions.129 1. First battalion is the light infantry battalion which is situated in Troms. 2. Second battalion is the mechanized battalions situated in north. 3. Third battalion is also the mechanized battalions situated in south.
Meanwhile the size of the Home Guard will remain the same in accordance with today’s level and the eleven Home Guard Districts will be remained as is. The structure of the force is adjusted in order to achieve a balance between ability and volume in performing various breadth tasks.
Population in total •5,207,689 Manpower Availability •2,150,000 Fit for Service •1,755,000 Reaching Military Age Annually •65,000 Active Frontline Personnel •26,500 Active Reserve Personnel •45,250
Table VIII Norway's Manpower130
129Norway’s New Long-Term Military Plans. Accessed online on 14 January 2017 at http://www.tnp.no/norway/panorama/2870-here-is-norways-new-long-term-military-plans 130Norwegian Manpower, the data was collected for 2016. Accessed online on 15 January 2017 at http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=norway
50
Tanks •52 Armored Fighting Vehicles (AFVs) •684 Self-Propelled Guns (SPGs) •54 Towed-Artillery •150 Multiple-Launch Rocket Systems (MLRSs) •0
Table IX Norwegian Land System131
Figure 10 Norwegian Army Bases132
131Norwegian Land Systems. The data was collected for 2016. Accessed online on 15 January 2017 at http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=norway
51
Air Force. The vital tasks of the Norwegian Air Force is to employ air capacities for emergency preparedness both nationally and internationally. The Norwegian Air Force owns and utilizes modern Figure 11Ørland airbase capacities including F-16 http://www.oras.com/en/consumer/references/P ublishingImages/OrlandMainAirStation1.jpg fighters, bell 412 helicopters and more and possesses a strong goal towards deeper international cooperation. The Long-Term Plan for the Norwegian Armed Forces for the period of 2013-2016 also suggests an acquisition of new fighter aircraft, with more changes on the support and base- structure that will serve as a catalyst for adaptation of the entire Air Force structure. By focusing the main activity to a less numb of bases as well as by further utilizing and nurturing competency, more resources will be available for operational tasks. The current government of Norway suggests that the new main base for the fighter jets is the Ørland airbase.133134 The Norwegian Air Force has a total of nine major facilities which are135;
1. BodØ Main Air Station 2. Ørland Main Air Station 3. AndØya Air Station
132Norwegian Army Bases. Accessed online 15 January 2017 at http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/no-haren.htm 133Ørland is the main air station of Norway. It is operated by the Royal Norwegian Air Force and it is a vital air base for Norway. The station is the main base for fighter aircraft, rescue and search helicopters and a location for E-3A Sentry AWACS. Accessed online on 15 January 2017 at http://www.oras.com/en/consumer/references/OrlandMainAirStation/Pages/OrlandMainAirStation.aspx 134Norwegian Air Force. Accessed online on 15 January 2017 at http://www.tnp.no/norway/panorama/2870-here-is- norways-new-long-term-military-plans 135Norwegian Major Facilties of Air Force. Accessed online on 15 January 2017 at http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/no-luftforsvaret.htm
52
4. Bardufoss Air Station 5. Gardermoen Air Station 6. Rygge Air Station 7. Sola Air Station 8. Sørreisa Air Defense Center 9. MagerØ Air Defense Center
Aircraft in Total •104 Fighters/Interceptors
•46 Fixed-Wing Attack Aircraft •46 Transport Aircraft •38
Trainer Aircraft •12 Helicopters •34 Attack Helicopters •0
Table X Norwegian Air Power
http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=norway
53
Figure 12 Norwegian Air Force Facilities http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/no-luftforsvaret.htm
54
Navy. Norway has a long coastline as large as mainland area and has national interests that need to be protected and pursued in a sea area. Compared to land and air forces, Long-Term Defense Plan for Norwegian Armed Forces for the period of 2013-2016 do not suggest to add major changes in the navy forces. However, there will be several minor changes in increasing the capability of the Norwegian navy forces. Norwegian navy is designated to contribute to exercising national authority and to ensure Norwegian sovereignty in accordance with Law of the Sea and to Norwegian law. Thus, every tasks performed by Norwegian navy should be performed in appropriate manner in time of peace, crisis and war, both in the national and international context. The Norwegian navy comprises of the Coast Guard, the Coastal Artillery, and the Navy.136 The Navy is chiefed by the Inspector General, supported by the Naval staff.
136Royal Norwegian Navy. Accessed online on 16 January 2017 at http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/no-sjoforsvaret.htm
55
Figure 13 Norwegian Naval Bases
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/images/no-map-navy-2013.jpg
Norwegian Navy has several division in their forces which are: the Coast Guard, the Fleet, the naval schools, and the naval bases.137The division in the Norwegian Navy perform different tasks: 1. The job of the Coast Guard is to cover the exercise of Norwegian authority and Sovereignty. Search and Rescue, providing aid in the form of inspection and other services to both government agencies and civil community, and environmental protection are considered as additional tasks. 2. The tasks of the Coastal Artillery is to block any harms towards the strategic harbors as well as towns. This is one of the reasons why utmost Coastal Artillery are stationed at the entrances to fjords138. Protecting against seaborne invasion as the Coastal Artillery’s mobile units whic are vital
137Idem. 138A fjord is a deep, narrow, elongated sea or lakedrain, with steep land on three sides. The opening toward the sea is called the mouth of the fjord, and is often shallow. The fjord’s inner part is called the sea bottom.
56
elements in the defense of important Norwegian defense capability is an additional task for this unit. 3. The tasks for the Norwegian fleet is to train and to maintain all the Navy’s units and the operational support units. All units are harbored at Haakonsvern naval base in Bergen, Western Norway. 4. The tasks for the naval Figure 14 Haakonsvern Naval Base schools is to recruit and to http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn199 /c_gull/CVF2/2010-07-29-1445-16.jpg provide education towards the naval personnel on all categories. 5. The Navy operates two naval bases which function as logistical and operational hubs. The main base is named Haakonsvern Orlogsstasjon 139, situated 15 kilimetres outside the central of Bergen. Meanwhile the other base is situated in Ramsund, Northern Norway.140
139Haakonsvern is the main base of the Royal Norwegian Navy and the largest naval base in the Nordic area. Located at Mathopen within Bergen municipality around 15 km south-west of the city centre, it has 5,400 work as conscripts, civillian staff or officers. 140See 132.
57
Naval Strength in Total •62 Aircraft Carriers •0 Frigates •5 Destroyers •0 Corvettes •0 Submarines •6 Coastal Defense Craft •26 Mine Warfare •9
Table XI Norwegian Naval Power141
141Norwegian Naval Power. Aircraft Carrier value consists dedicated ‘helicopter carrier’ vessels and the total naval strength consists of all known auxiliaries as well. Data was collected for 2016. Accessed online on 16 January 2017 at http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=norway
58
III.3.2. Norwegian Military Budget/Spending
Norway aimed to increase its military budget/spending by around half a billion USD to empower Norway’s defenses against Russian threat. “Norway would spend 3.6 billion kroner (or equals to $477 million) on establishing Norway’s first anti-aircraft battery and modernizing our squadron of Germand-made Leopard 2 tanks, among other defense projects,” stated by Norway’s Defense Minister Ine Eriksen Soreide. The Chief of Defense thus elaborated that the real growth in defense cost is included as part of the Norwegian defense planning and in order to support long-term balance between resources, structure and missions, the defense budget must be regained. One other aspect involving the increasing growth of military spending is the gradual reform of the Norwegian Armed Forces in both personnel and equipment.
The Long-Term Defense Plan for Norwegian Armed Forces for the period of 2013-2016 is arguable balanced and fully funded as the 2012 budget plus the savings accumulated from various sectors are managed to be stored. “We now have a solid foundation for futher development,” stressed Norwegian Defense Minister Ine Eriksen Soreide. Norway’s military spending/budget is continued to focus on cost-effectiveness and saving thuswill balance the structure Norway has today.142
142Norway’s Military Spending. Accessed online on 17 January 2017 at http://www.tnp.no/norway/panorama/2870- here-is-norways-new-long-term-military-plans
59
Defense Budget (in USD) • $7,000,000,000 External Debt (in USD) • $661,200,000,000 Reserves of Foreign Exchange and Gold (in USD) • $64,800,000,000 Purchasing Power Parity (in USD) • $346,300,000,000
Table XII Norwegian Military Budget143
143Regardless of strength in numbers, war is still driven by financing as much as any one leader or weapon. Norwegian Military Budget. Data was collected for 2016. Accessed online on 17 January 2017 at http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=norway
60
III.3.3. Norwegian Military Objectives
It’s true that Norway possesses a geo-strategic location that it possesses vast offshore natural resources and a populace that are not too- overly interested in ‘paying’ more in a military aspect. Such situation makes the state vulnerable to any potential threats and thus Norway continues to militarily support the US in conflicts Norway otherwise would not engage in – deeper international cooperation with the United State will bring great impact to Norway, militarily speaking. The Strategic Defense Review by Norwegian Chief of Defense Ine Eriksen Soreide focuses on the future development of the Norwegian Armed Forces. 144 Through the Strategic Defense Review, the Chief recommend an increased focus on the defense of Norway by strengthening the surveillance and intelligence of Norwegian personnel, increasing the readiness towards any potential threats/conflicts, responsiveness and endurance, and lastly empowering the ability to defend Norwegian vital infrastructure.
There are five ares of Norwegian military objectives based on the priority order145: 1. Armed attack on Norway 2. Coercive diplomacy supported by military efforts 3. Terrorist attacks 4. Upholding national sovereignty and pursuing national authority 5. Giving contributions to international activities
The Long-Term Defense Plan for Norwegian Armed Forces for the period of 2013-2016 is also formulated several vital elements as recent military objectives which are146:
144Strategic Defense Review by Norwegian Chief of Defense Ine Eriksen Soreide. Accessed online on 18 January 2017 at http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/no-policy.htm 145Idem.
61
1. The conduct of conscription Conscription will remain the vital element of Norwegian armed forces, even though the numbers of professional and well-trained soldiers are massive and to be increased. Conscription mentioned in the Long-Term Defense Plan for Norwegian Armed Forces will be different compared to the previous model as there will be several development and adaptation in order to fit the requirements needed for both responsiveness and operational units based on freedom of action and flexibility as well as promote cost effectiveness and increased demands for specialized expertise. 2. An increased flexibility and reactivity of the Army The Long-Term Defense Plan for Norwegian Armed Forces also aims to have an increased flexibility and reactivity of the Norwegian Army with total of three battalions consist of two mechanized battalions situation in the south and north and one battalion situated in Troms. The plan also demands an increase in the number of conscripts serving alongside professional soldiers.
3. Increasing the number of Air Forces The Long-Term Defense Plan for Norwegian Armed Forces suggests increasing the number of Norwegian Air Forces by having the acquisition of new fighter aircraft, complete with reform of the base- and support structure that operates as a catalyst to adjust the entire Air Force structure. The plan also believes that by utilizing main activity to just a fewer number of bases as well as still maintaining competency, more resources will be able to be reserved for future operational activity.
4. Focusing on cost-effectiveness and savings regarding military spending
146‘Here is Norway’s New Long-Term Military Plans’, 2012, (Oslo, 2012). Accessed online on 19 January 2017 at http://www.tnp.no/norway/panorama/2870-here-is-norways-new-long-term-military-plans
62
Previous Long-Term Plan has completed the gradual reform of the Norwegian Armed Forces in regards to personnel and equipment147 and at the end of 2013 when the new Long-Term Plan was about to be issued, with the 2012 savings and budget collected from various sectors, the structure of the Norwegian Armed Forces is fully-funded and balanced that the structure of Norwegian Armed Forces becomes a solid foundation for further development. The Long- Term Defense Plan for Norwegian Armed Forces aims to continue focusing on cost-effectiveness and savings and is estimated to reach 640 mill NOK.148
5. The F-35 acquisition The government of Norway has been longing to fulfill their ambition to have much of F-35 acquisition for the defense sector as possible and a total acquisition of F-35 hit 52 in the end of 2013 and that has fulfilled this ambition. The government of Norway led by Erna Solberg has been spreading the acquisition over an increased number of years, taking delivery of the first training aircraft earlier than supposed to, and prolonging the duration of acquisition.
6. Restructuring of the personnel and competencies structures The Long-Term Defense Plan for Norwegian Armed Forces for the period of 2013 – 2016 will conduct a reform of the personnel and competencies structures. The restructuring will focus the whole strategic competencies management and the whole of the defense sector. This effort will require new measures on areas by developing necessary skills for personnel or recruiting well-trained or professional personnel.
7. Emergency readiness
147Idem. 148‘Here is Norway’s New Long-Term Military Plans’, 2012, (Oslo, 2012). Accessed online on 19 January 2017 at http://www.tnp.no/norway/panorama/2870-here-is-norways-new-long-term-military-plans
63
The terror attacks happened on 22 July 2011 has given emotional injury to all of Norwegian people therefore the need of having immediate readiness during emergency crises or situations is absolute needed.149 The Long-Term Defense Plan for Norwegian Armed Forces will sharply focus on the role of defense sector and emergency preparedness. The defense sector will act, when requested, to assist the police in times of emergency or crises.
8. Advanced knowledge and understanding on cyber space The domain of cyber is undoubtly situated alongside air, land and sea. Challenges and threats nowadays move and spread vastly in this domain therefore the Long-Term Defense Plan for Norwegian Armed Forces will ensure that the Norwegian Armed Forces are able to exploit and utilize the digital space to support their operations, surveillance and intelligence as well as to completely aware of this cyber domain. The government of Norway aims to empower Norwegian military capacities within cyber defense and intelligence.
149The terror attacks happened in Oslo and Buskerud counties of Norway, Norway by a group of terrorists that claimed a total of 77 lives. Accessed online on 21 January 2017 at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Norway_attacks
64
CHAPTER IV THE IMPLEMENTATION OF NORWEGIAN DEFENSE POLICY TOWARDS ARCTIC (2013-2016) IN COPING WITH MILITARY DEVELOPMENT IN THE REGION
IV.1. Analyzing the Implementation of Norwegian Defense Policy towards Arctic
Realizing the fact that climate change is happening in the Arctic region has made most of the ice melted that it resulted to give several access to bigger continents, abundant resources and path to the other Arctic nations, have projected new analysis in regards to the security situation in the region. Some politicians, observers and researchers have identified that the region possesses huge conflict potential both over sovereignty and natural resources. Thus the Arctic nations, primarily five major Arctic nations such as Norway, Russia, the United States, Canada, and Denmark, have empowered and developed their military capabilities in order to prepare for such potential threat to come to pass. Some observers also identified that the recent illegal actions conducted by Russia have also driven the increasing tensions between Arctic nations and militarization in the Arctic. Arguably, the major players in the Arctic and the rest of Arctic nations focused only on the defense of current national territories.
In the Arctic, Norway is like a small state that needs to adapt to uncertainty of global security environment, the state can’t deny but to feel the massive increase military pressure and political activity in the Arctic region. Such change in the global security environment will always challenge the idea of demilitarization and international cooperation. As one of the Arctic nations and major player in the Arctic, Norway has been aiming a defense policy focussed on cooperation and deterrence. The defense policy was previously brought to action under the previous Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg for the period of 2005-2013.150 However the new Norwegian Prime Minister
150Justyna Gotkowska, 2014, ‘Norwegian security and defense policy’, (Ośrodek Studiów Wschodnich im. Marka Karpia, 2014). Accessed online on 20 January 2017 at https://www.osw.waw.pl/en/publikacje/analyses/2014-07- 09/norwegian-security-and-defence-policy-strategy-time-crisis
65
Erna Solberg has changed and has made several corrections to Norwegian defense and security policy which has been to a major level focused on the High North. The major corrections have completely potrayed greatly the need to improve national defense and security as the region is no longer as stable as before. “Unfortunately the geopolitical circumstances have changed significantly, in a bad way, in recent years,” emphasized by Prime Minister Erna Solberg in a press conference in Oslo. One of the reason the major corrections has to be made is because the never-ending uncertainty in regards to Russia’s policy keeps haunting Norway (the other two reasons are because there are divisions occuring within NATO which have been worrisome for several years and the shifting security policy of the United States towards Asia-Pacific).151
The Norwegian Parliament recognized the Long-Term Defense Plan 2013- 2016 arranged by the Ministry of Defense of Norway to set great future direction for Norwegian armed forces reform. With that being said, the Conservative Party led by Erna Solberg aims to pay extra attention to defense matters compared to the previous social democratic government led by Jens Stoltenberg.152 Proudly to say that the current Long-Term Military Plan will be focusing to increase defense spending and address the lacking military capabilities in the High North. Defense policy led by Prime Minister Erna Solberg also aimed to restore NATO’s cohesiveness during a particular crisis or potential crisis which is interconnected with Russia’s unpredictable moves and policies. “We have an increasingly unpredictable neighbour to the east which is strengthening its military capacity, and showing willingness to use military force as a political tool,” further elaborated by Norwegian Prime Minister Erna Solberg.153 Seeing that how vital and important High North to Norway because it holds and possesses several major parts of Norway’s main economy sectors (fishing, energy and maritime transport), Norway has begin to afraid of the particular unregulated legal issues remain unsolved may lead to conflicts and crises in the region that possible Norway could be tagged along into.
151See 150. 152Jens Stoltenberg served as Prime Ministers of Norway from 2005 to 2013. 2009 was his second term elected as Prime Minister. Accessed online on 14 January 2017 at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jens_Stoltenberg 153‘Norway boosts defense against Russia threat’, 2016. Accessed online on 23 January 2017 at http://www.thelocal.no/20160618/norway-boosts-defences-against-unpredictable-russia
66
Being aware of the fact that the vital goal of Norway’s defense policy is to reduce and to prevent potential conflicts or challenges in the High North to heat up, Norway has started to have a deeper international cooperation with Russia in the Arctic in order to minimize the risk of tensions getting more alarming as well as to establish a network linked with various important contacts and enhance mutual trust. Norway intents to pursue bilateral relations with Russia in order to have resolution based on consensus regarding any conflicts that could lead to a military crisis. This is very smart move of Norway to lessen the tensions between Norway and Russia, seeing that the recent illegal actions of Russia and Russia’s security policy that somehow harmed Norway’s national interest has created the uncertainty feeling from Norway’s side. Norway could no longer rest-assured because High North and area surrounding is recently viewed as potential strategic location for Russia and Russia has started to execute their military activities around it. The network of contacts in the region is also very useful to avert the growing of potential threats and challenges through the use of available communications channels as well as to create a positive depiction of the other partner.154
Vital elements of Norway’s defense policy is to provide advanced maintenance and expansion of the nation’s own defense capabilities. The development of Norwegian Armed Forces are determined by all the tasks, activities, structures, military equipment and armament also include the geographical location of military infrastructure in Norway conducted and applied in Norway’s High North. Through defense policy brought by Prime Minister Erna Solberg, Norway has been also increasing its military spending regarding the Arctic region and it can be seen through the fact that Norway’s military expenditure per capita, among NATO member states, is the highest.155 Even though the defense spending has been increasing long before the current Prime Minister took place, but this time the defense spending is more focused on improving Norway’s military capabilities in preventing potential crises.
154See 150. 155Norwegian Ministry of Defense, 2012, ‘Norway releases New Defense Plan’. Accessed online on 19 January 2017 at https://www.osw.waw.pl/sites/default/files/pw_38_norwegia_ang_net_0.pdf
67
The defense policy brought by current Prime Minister Erna Solberg and Norway’s Long-Term Defense Plan also stated clearly the primary task of the Norwegian Armed Forces that are more focused in defending Norway’s national interest in the High North.156 The primary tasks of the Norwegian Armed Forces are: to defend Norwegian sovereignty, national interests and national values; to serve particular matter together with its allies and independently; and to implement Norway’s laws across Norwegian territory including areas that are under Norwegian jurisdiction. Norway has been dealing with several legal issues occured in the Arctic and other regions whether Norway was involved directly or being dragged into and it’s really worrisome for Norway to cope such legal disputes. That one particular issue that undermined Norway’s relation with Russia was the maritime dispute in the south-estern Barents Sea and the Arctic Ocean, the dispute was settled by signing an agreement on maritime delimitation and cooperation.157 By setting clear and implementing Norway’s laws across Norwegian territory under Norwegian jurisdiction can minimize the possibility of having another legal disputes – it won’t prevent it completely however Norway will be in the fortunate side since it has been sounded clearly regarding the Norway’s sovereignty and any state harming other state’s national interests will be considered violating the sovereignty of that particular state.
The defense policy brought by current Norwegian Prime Minister Erna Solberg and Norway’s Long-Term Defense Plan are also planning to modernize and develop the Norwegian Armed Forces which is a great thing to improve Norway’s military capabilities. If Norway wants to defend High North, Norway needs all the power it can get to do the task. The defense policy and Defense Plan aims to maintain a visible and a constant military presence at sea, in the air, and on land in the Norwegian High North.158 There’s only one answer to the question of ‘why Norway needs to focus
156Siemon T. Wezeman, 2016, ‘Military Capabilities in the Arctic: A New Cold War in the High North’, (SIPRI Background Paper, 2016). Accessed online on 23 January 2017 at https://www.sipri.org/sites/default/files/Military-capabilities-in- the-Arctic.pdf 157See 150. 158Justyna Gotkowska, Olaf Osica (eds.), 2012, ‘Closing the gap? Military cooperation from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea’, (OSW Report, 2012), p. 38. Accessed online on 19 January 2017 at http://www.osw.waw.pl/en/publikacje/osw- report/2012-12-10/closing-gapmilitary-cooperation-baltic-sea-to-black-sea
68
heavily on the development of Norwegian Armed Forces?’ which is to address the threat of protecting Norway’s value creation in the High North (not only in High North but also all Norwegian territories under Norwegian Jurisdiction) and Norway’s economic interests as well as promoting its capabilities for responding a crisis across large maritime areas. Several replacements on the military capabilities have also been made by Norway aimed specifically for operations in Arctic conditions. With that being said, there will be no more ‘Normal Battalions’ which are existing battalions in the Norwegian High North but there will be an ‘Arctic Batallion’ that is specifically trained and equiped for polar conditions and will be structured with both of permanent personnel and conscripts.159
159Justyna Gotkowska, 2014, ‘Norwegian security and defense policy’, (Ośrodek Studiów Wschodnich im. Marka Karpia, 2014). Accessed online on 23 January 2017 at https://www.osw.waw.pl/en/publikacje/analyses/2014-07- 09/norwegian-security-and-defence-policy-strategy-time-crisis
69
The Long-Term Defense Plan for Norwegian Armed Forces for the period of 2013-2016 is also formulated several vital elements which are seen to be more focused on developing Norwegian military capacities. The Defense Plan is expected to be more advanced and prepared in dealing with potential crises which one of the elements stated that the plan will work on the emergency preparedness and the role of defense sector in assisting the police in times of crises or emergency. Not only that, the plan also aims to improve deeper understanding to something which currently being a commonplace to spread misinformation and threats which is cyber. If this is to be utilized and formulated perfectly then the Norwegian Armed Forces then will be able to cope and prevent future cyber space attacks as well as by utilizing the digital space, it will Figure 15 Russia border guards visit Norway during Joint Military support their operations, surveillance and intelligence. While the other two talked http://barentsobserver.com/sites/barentsobserver.com/fi les/styles/grid_8/public/main/articles/bt3a2758.jpeg?ito about emergency preparedness and k=qd9I9_R7 ‘conquering’ the cyber space domain, the rest elements stated within the Plan are focused on increasing the main element on defense policy which is Armed Forces. By increasing the number of Air Forces complete with the well-trained personnel and increasing the Army, the competency on every operations or tasks can still be maintained and will also be able to reserve more resources for future operational activity. It is just about time for Norway to dig out all the potentials it has and utilize the best out of it in order to protect the Norwegian national interests in the High North.
It’s true that the nature between Russia and Norway’s relation has changed significantly as Norwegian military leaders and politician have awared of significant
70
changes in the security sector including increasing concers in regard to Russia’s illegal action. Previously, one can say and see that Russian-Norwegian relations were considered to be just fine as the both major Arctic nations have increasingly cooperated in the European Arctic area and they both conducted joint military exercises. But eversince Norway perceived Russia to carry potential threats and challenges to Norway’s national interest in the High North, Norway can’t do nothing but remain in full caution and worrisome to the any future Russia’s attempts in the Arctic. Russians always believe that realism is the determining factor that should be carried as international model where the relative power of the states is what matters the most thus Russia has applied it over the last 30 years.160
Sadly to say (If to be looked in Norway’s position) that the only superpower in the High North is Russia. Russia’s ambitions and committments in the Arctic is unprecedented primarily because seeing how the region possesses significant values and benefits for Russia’s economy and nuclear deterrence. Russia has shown recently how intensify the use of force in international conflicts and they made it clear that they will conduct and perform any means to protect their primary national interests. The ambitions of Russia have been revealed clearly specificaly in the Arctic – the strategic region for Russia’s economy and military purposes. Since Norway is one of the collective western protagonist, Russia will always be challenged by Norway’s presence in the High North and Norway also feels the same by Russian activity. Thus Russians would like to gain the major position and role in the High North to try to avoid disturbance towards their commercial activity in the region and their military activity as well to stiffen their claims in potential negotiations over disputed areas.
160See 150.
71
IV.2. The Implementation of Norwegian Defense Policy towards Arctic (2013 – 2016) IV.2.1. Norwegian Military Strategy
The deficiency of any major threats since the Cold War plus with the anticipation towards a rising conflict along with the superiority of the NATO alliance, have somehow decreased the necessity for a notable conflict deterrence capability for Norway. However since the major attention is now leading towards the Arctic, where melting polar gives access to new exploitable areas faster than before, Norway needs to prepare for any future invasion in Norwegian High North – ‘touching and scrambling’ Norway’s national interests. Norway has specifically formulated a strategy in regards to the changing environment in the Arctic and actors involved in it – the strategy is named the Norwegian Security Strategy.161 The strategy is based on the NATO collective defense concept that has been ‘spiced up’ by the national intention and goal of defending national interests. The strategy is designated to cope crises and incidents occuring in the High North or harming Norway’s sovereign rights including giving a ‘green light’ to allied military action on national territory. 162 This strategy stresses on the need for higher preparedness for contributions to international operations and counterterrorism with faster reaction time conducted and operated by more professional forces. So if the previous strategy led by previous Norwegian Chief of Defense focused on having a large and strong mobilization force, the strategy led by the current Norwegian Chief of Defense focuses on having a balanced, small and capable readiness force.
By using a limited number of forces but containing professional and well-trained personnel, the usage of resources can be reserved and managed
161The Norwegian Security Strategy in the Arctic. Accessed online on 21 January 2017 at http://cimsec.org/norway- faces-new-era-russian-realpolitik-arctic/25984 162Defense Long Term Proposition (2013-2016) ver 13.0, “Et Forsvar for Vår Tid,” Norwegian Ministry of Defense, 2014, 25-27.
72
plus the operations or tasks can also be carried out perfectly. But this strategy is still believed to be collapsing. Why is that? Mainly because there are no permanent allied forces placed and situated in Norway. Once the first line of defense of Norway is attacked and endangered, it will take much of power to defend it and reinforce it since the focus of the rest Norwegian Armed Forces will be stationed in the cental line of Norwegian defense. It will take a long enough for Norway to wait and receive allied reinforcements and once the state has began to fall, NATO then would meet a situation whether reinforcing the territory or retaking it and most likely NATO would take the decision to retake it instead of reinforcing the territory, leaving the region to be attacked back in the future – definitely an arduous decision to take by NATO. Actually it’s not really an arduous decision to take by NATO because the Northern area of Norway has given a low priority compared to the southern and eastern of NATO as NATO is now starting to deteriorating. Most of the European NATO powers’ military capabilities are reduced to degrees which unable to cope all the strategic concerns of the alliance no more. Russia sees this as an opportunity to give pressure on the cohesiveness of NATO as well as to test out NATO’s willingness to assist the alliance. With all the being said, Norway should not wait for the alliance to mobilize their military strength to assist Norway and should only rely on its National Armed Forces to defend its national sovereignty against Russian aggression.
IV.2.2. Norwegian NATO Strategy
Being aware towards the changing global security environment in the Arctic and growing political and military pressure from Russia, Norway needs to mobilize their military strength and should not wait for the alliance to assist Norway. However, Norway is a small state and to be independent is somewhat impossible. Even though NATO is believed to be deteriorating, the Norwegian Government is obliged to mitigate the weakening of the NATO especially in regards to its role and presence in the Arctic in assisting its
73
member states. The Norwegian Government, through Norwegian Defense Policy, aims to strengthen Norway’s role and ties in NATO’s operations. “With the Long-Term Defense Plan 2013-2016, we hope to achieve major role in NATO’s operations,” stated by Norwegian Minister of Defense Ine Eriksen.163 In order to increase NATO’s priority in the Arctic, allies and partners of NATO must see a committed national effort by Norway before they can expected to contribute to a deterrent effort in Norway and the Arctic.
One of the strategies to increase the role of NATO in the Arctic is by increasing its investment in defense to the agreed 2% level of the GDP. 164 Meanwhile for the security policy, Norwegian security policy remains committed to NATO and is developed based on Norway’s needs. In order to restore NATO’s credibility, Norway must be a committed member and be seen as willing to take its responsibilities as one of the major contributors. Norway also seeks to increase awareness among its allies towards how challenging the situation is on the northern flank. Norway has also contributed a battalion for NATO’s implementation forces to showing a committment of Norway to NATO. 165 Norway has also pushed NATO’s maritime capabilities in the Arctic for a long time. “NATO needs a coherent and robust long-term strategy to deal with the new security environment,” stated by Norwegian Minister of Defense Ine Eriksen after the Warsaw Summit 2016. She further elaborated that the key element of of NATO strategy must be maritime power and presence in the North.
NATO needs to start thinking about the Arctic, insert it into main priority and address it into actions, that includes the operationalization of its maritime strategy. It would be pointless for Norway to devise a fully-baked Arctic strategy when NATO is not on board, the members and partners are
163 See 126. 164 Norwegian NATO Strategy. Accessed online 16 February 2017 at http://cimsec.org/norway-faces-new-era-russian- realpolitik-arctic/25984 165 See 127.
74
not on board with the idea of having more presence there. “NATO should watch Arctic closely, but not overhype it,” stressed by Norwegian Chief of Defense.
IV.2.3. Norwegian Military Weaponry/Armed Forces Deployment
As it has been stressed earlier that Norway and Russia’s relations were considered to be harmonious as there were several joint cooperation made particularly to prevent any potential threats for happening. However, according to the Norwegian military and political leaders, they have seen and taken an account that significant changes towards Russia’s behavior in the security environment is alarming, not to mention several increasing concerns in regard to Russia and its ambitions in the Arctic. Even though it’s still not considered as a direct military threat to Norway, the uncertainty it has brought to Norway has made Norway to strengthen its military capabilities in Norwegian High North. Thus Norway has started to project a strong military presence in several Norwegian territories to anticipate any worst possibilities. The Norwegian Defense Policy remains guided by Norwegian Defense Minister and providing a guidance and focus to Norwegian Armed Forces in the northern area of Norway and Svalbard (or known as High North).
Several changes in the military sector have been made including in 2009, the changing of Norwegian armed forces headquarters from Jåttå situated in the south of the state to Reitan situated in the north of the Arctic Circle, near Bodø. For the Norwegian Navy, the main base air station remains in Bergen, in the south while the headquarters for coast guard was changed to Sortland, to the north (2011).166 Moving main base indicates that the closer the main base to the Arctic, the faster Norwegian Armed Forces could respond to any potential threats in the future. The year of 2013 and 2015
166Siemon T. Wezemen, 2016, ‘Military Capabilities in the Arctic: A New Cold War in the High North?,’ (SIPRI Background Paper, 2016), p. 10.
75
marks Norway as the leading state for a new set of mass military training situated in the north of Scandinavia and the military training was named the ‘Arctic Challenge’ (ACE).167 ACE has an agenda that is conducted every once in two years involving Norwegian, NATO, Swedish, and Finish air forces.
IV.2.2.1. Air Force
The Norwegian Government continues the need of reforms and the modernization of the Norwegian Armed Forces that was previously ignited and launched by its predecessor. The Long-
Term Defense Plan for Figure 16 Norwegian F-35 aircraft Norwegian Armed Forces for https://media.defense.gov/2015/Nov/12/2001317730/ the period of 2013-2016 added -1/-1/0/151011-F-BW200-024.JPG and perfected from the previous parliament suggests to modernize the Air Force and restructure them. Norway has operated some 60 F-16 combat aircraft in the region before 2008 and in the year of 2008 has selected to use 52 F-35 aircraft instead as replacement and then to be used and operated up until now.168 To be more detailed, the first 2 F-35 aircraft were prepared for Norway in 2015 for training missions in the USA, 28 are scheduled to enter service in 2017- 2020 and all 52 are planned to be utilized by 2024. 169 F-35 aircraft possesses a vital maritime role and will be utilized and armed with the
167Idem. 168Wall R, ‘Norway sets JSF buy in new budget’, (Aviation Week, 2011). 169Stevenson, O’Dwyer, ‘Norway adds $500m to bolster High North’. (Defense News, 2015).
76
Norwegian NSM anti-ship missile. 170 In 2014, Poland, Netherlands have joined with Norway to obtain three to four A330 MRTT tanker aircraft and those three to four will be expected to start in service from 2019.171
The Norwegian Air Forces for Arctic lies with the amount of six P-3 long- range maritime patrol aircraft, which each of them in detail is 26 years old. 172 All of them have been functioning in the Figure 17Bodø Main Air Station High North of Norway and https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/ expected to be retired f/f2/Two_F- somewhen around 2017 and 16_at_Bod%C3%B8_Main_Air_Station.jpg/300px- Two_F-16_at_Bod%C3%B8_Main_Air_Station.jpg 2028 and will be replaced by satellite-based sensors, four new surveillance aircraft and six long-range UAVs. None of these replacements are ordered for early 2016 as they are expected to be in service by 2024.173 60 F-16 in a large proportion operated by Norway are situated at Bodø, the headquarter/main base of the Norwegian Air Force.174 New F-35 aircraft will also be stationed in the further south at Ørland works to monitor the airspace of Norwegian High North. Plus Norway also intends to station a small number of F-35 at the Harstad/Narvik Airport
170Pettersen, T., ‘Norwegian Intelligence Service: Russia is more confident and unpredictable’, (Independent Barents Observer, 24 Feb. 2016). Accessed online on 21 January 2017 at http://thebarentsobserver.com/en/2016/02/norwegian-intelligence-service-russia-more-confident-and unpredictable ; (Norwegian Intelligence Service, Fokus 2016, Feb. 2016). Accessed online on 21 January 2017 at https://forsvaret.no/fakta_/ForsvaretDocuments/Fokus%202016.pdf ; and Norwegian Chief of Defence, Admiral Haakon Bruun-Hanssen, in Tringham, K., ‘Northern recomposure’, (Jane’s Defence Weekly, 21 Oct. 2015), pp. 24–25 171Idem. 172Tringham, p. 25; and Stevenson, B., ‘Norway reconfi rms plans to acquire 52 F-35s’, (Flightglobal, 5 Oct. 2015). Accessed online on 21 January 2017 at https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/norwayreconfirmsplanstoacquire- 52-f-35s-417409/ 173Idem. 174Norwegian Armed Forces, ‘Norwegian Joint Headquarters’, 9 Feb. 2012; and Norwegian Armed Forces, ‘The Army’.
77
at Evenes (situated around a hundred and seventy kilometres to the north of Bodø), where proportionality close to where the Norwegian Air Force small base that has been there for many years.175
IV.2.2.2. Army
Reforming and restructuring of the Norwegian Army that began in 2009, the winter-trained Brigade Nord or known as Brigade North is arguably the major unit of the Norwegian Army. Utmost of the brigade are situated in Troms . Meanwhile the other two which are catagorized as a heavy battalions are situated in Oslo, far south of Norway. 176 Before the Long-Term Defense Plan for Norwegian Armed Forces for the period of 2013- 2016 took place, in the year of 2011 the Norwegian Chief of Defense suggested to cut the size of the brigade. 177 However, Figure 18 Norwegian Anti-Tank Weapons
the 2012 Defense White http://images.unian.net/photos/2014_11/141570503 4-9164.jpg Paper left the brigade ‘untouched’, consistingtwo heavy mechanized battalions and one light infantry battalion.178 The other armoured vehicles and Norway’s tanks are
1750 Berglund, N., ‘Fighter jet base landed at Ørland’, (News in English.no, 2 Mar. 2012). Accessed online on 22 January 2017 at http://www.newsinenglish.no/2012/03/02/fighter-jet-base-landed-at-orland/ 176‘Brigade Nord’. Accessed online on 22 January 2017 at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigade_Nord 177Berg, J., ‘Norwegian plan recommends air base closure’, (Jane’s Defence Weekly, 30 Nov. 2011), p. 13. 178Norwegian Ministry of Defence (MOD), Et forsvar for vår tid [A defence for our times], (Norwegian MOD: 23 Mar. 2012), pp. 90–93.
78
being modernized and Norway got new delivered armoured vehicles and the brigade’s air defense will then also be expanded and modernized.179
The Long-Term Defense Plan for the Norwegian Armed Forces for the period of 2013-2016 and the 2015 military review stressed on the expansion of the brigade and planning to base part of it in the northern part of Norway at Porsangermoen Camp. 180 The 2015 military review also emphasized the plan to modernize the equipment of the 17th District of Home Guard, which means to save forces specifically for local defense and separate them from the army, in Finnmark, particularly with anti-tank weapons and electronic warfare systems in order to intensify its ‘rapid response’ units. The electronic warfare systems and anti-tank weapons are designated to be used throughout Norway from approximately 3000 to 3250 personnel. Both Long- Term Defense Plan and the 2015 military review also stressed the point to strengthen and empower the border guard in the Russian border.181
179See 150. 180Note (163), p.12. 181Norwegian Armed Forces, Norwegian Armed Forces in Transition (Norwegian Armed Forces:Oct. 2015)
79
IV.2.2.3. Navy
The Long-Term Defense Plan for Norwegian Armed Forces and The 2015 military review aims to have a greater level of efforts for the Norwegian Navy in the High North, situated and operated from its Figure 19 Norwegian Nansen Frigate main base situated in https://s-media-cache- Ramsund, 200 kilometres of ak0.pinimg.com/736x/6c/1d/63/6c1d6357c343e988c1c db9eb77650e13.jpg the Arctic Circle (near Narvik).182 The detailed development of Norwegian Navy started since the year of 2011 where the Norwegian Navy replaced its five small frigates with five that were much larger and more capable of Nansen frigates. Due to their equipment and size, the new frigates are able to be utilized in Arctic waters more properly.183 The first ever large combat support ship was also ordered in 2013 and is to be delivered in 2016. The combat support ship was ordered from South Korea through South Korea’s DSME as they have won contract for build and design a new logistics support vessel for Norway.184 The task for the large combat support ship is to give the frigates a substantial increase in endurance and range.
182Idem. 183Wikipedia, ‘Norwegian Coast Guard’. Accessed online on 22 January 2017 at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_Coast_Guard; and Norwegian Ministry of Defence, ‘The Navy’. Accessed online on 22 January 2017 at https://forsvaret.no/en/organisation/navy 184‘South Korea’s DSME wins contract for design and build of a new logistics support vessel for Norway’, (Navy Recognition, 15 Aug. 2013). Accessed online on 22 January 2017 at http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/news/defence-news/year-2013-news/august-2013-navy-world- navalforces-maritime-industrytechnology-news/1191-south-koreas-dsme-wins-contract-for-design-and-build-of-anew- logistics-support-vessel-for-norway.html
80
Norway also has submarines called Ula that can operate in the Arctic waters. But since the Ula submarines were originally produced around 1990, it was decided that the Ula submarines needed Figure 20 Norwegian Barentshav OPV replacements with new http://www.norwegianamerican.com/wp- submarines which the design content/uploads/2009/11/ship_opv_kv_barentshav_lng_ef has yet to be decided. The ficien.jpg replacements will be expected to begin operating in the middle of 2020s.185 In the High North, Norway also utilizes a large research ship along with signals and electronic intelligence equiment which works in thin ice. A replacement was ordered in the year of 2010 and expected to be operated perfectly in 2017. In the year of 2015, there was a decision to modernize and keep the old ship in service therefore the old ship and new ship will still be operated in the Arctic without the old ones being replaced completely186 The Norwegian Coast Guard also utilizes large and lightly armed icebreaker/OPV (the Svalbard) and three barentshav OPVs, the large ones, all included with helicopter hangar. The three barentshav OPVs are capable on operating in icy conditions. Not only that, it also possesses four other large ocean-going OPVs which believed to be needing replacements soon around 2020 (only Svalbard that has warships or patrol ships that can break ice).187
185See 162. 186Nilsen, T., ‘Spy ship changes name and continues intelligence mission’, (Independent Barents Observer, 30 Mar. 2016). Accessed online on 22 January 2017 at http://thebarentsobserver.com/en/security/2016/03/spy-ship- changesname-and-continue-intelligence-mission 187See 174.
81
IV.2.3. Norwegian Military Spending
In order to be able to develop and to expand military capabilites, one particular state needs to have an abundant of funding to purchase all the advanced military capabilities it can get. Norway has been pursuing several focuses to have more advanced and powerful military capabilities in the High North as the current and old ones are starting to deterioriate. The Long-Term Defense Plan aims in allocating NOK 150 billion or equals to $18.3 billion USD to the Armed Forces over the next 20 years.188 The allocation will be used to protect larger investments such as the purchase of 52 F-35 jet fighters, new submarines and new maritime patrol planes. But there are several elements that will be eliminated by Norwegian Minister of Defense Ine Søreide Eriksen. “We have to abandon the idea that a bigger defense on paper – and with lots of hardware in the garage, along the pier or in the hangar – is better than a samller and sharper but truly operational force that can perform the tasks required of it,” stressed by Norwegian Minister of Defense Ine Søreide Eriksen.189 She further elaborated that if Norway fails to do that, the Armed Forces will be unable to fulfill its demanding tasks in the High North.
188Trude Pettersen, 2016, ‘Norwegian military faces major cuts’, (The Independent Barents Observer, 2016). Accessed online on 22 January 2017 at http://www.rcinet.ca/eye-on-the-arctic/2016/04/21/norwegian-military-faces-major- cuts/ 189Idem.
82
Norway’s Defense Minister Ine Søreide Eriksen in her long-term plan for the Armed Forces is suggesting: •The elimination of 1,500 jobs •1,100 from military staff •450 from civilians •The liquidation of 700 men from second battalion of the Northern Brigade in Troms County •The closing of several bases •Trondenes •Harstad Syd •Asegarden •Setnesmoen •Kjeller •Andøya •Kjevik •Nærøysund og Grunden 22 •The reinforcement of the Border Guard on the Norwegian-Russian border with a ranger company
Table XIIINorway’s Defense Minister Ine Søreide Eriksen in her long-term plan for the Armed Forces190
It’s very risky for the Norway’s Defense Minister to perform those things she has suggested because the army will be the branch that will be hit the hardest. But in the other hand, the allocations to the Armed Forces and the objective to have only operational forces to perform the tasks effectively and perfectly is a great decision. Norway definitely needs to scale upgrade its defense sector primarily because Russia’s military activites in the Arctic has created uncertainty security situation in the region. Norway, as one of the NATO member state, shares a border with Moscow in the Arctic, where Norway has awared that Russia has been performing military activity in the region. “They have shown that they are willing to use military force to achieve their national interest and political ambitions in the region,” Norwegian Adm, Haakon Bruun-Hanssen said.191 The extra expenditure will definitely bring Norway’s military budget increasing towards the 2.0 percent
190Idem. 191‘Norway must increase defense spending to counter Russian build-up’, 2017. Accessed online on 23 January 2017 at https://themoscowtimes.com/news/norway-must-increase-defense-spending-to-counter-russian-build-up-49999
83
of GDP goal.192“The Norwegian government takes the new security situation very seriously, and in 2016 we intend to follow up on out stated intention of strengthening the Norwegian armed forces in areas which allow its operational capabilities to grow in both the short and the long term,” emphasized by Defense Minister Ine Søreide Eriksen.193
“The uncertainty that has been ignited by Russia makes it even more important to signal that we are willing and prepared to defend Norway and Norwegian territory if necessary,”
said Bruun-Hanssen in stressing the importance to increase military budget for Norwegian Defense sector.194
192‘Norway boosts defense against Russia threat’, 2016. Accessed online on 22 January 2017 at http://www.thelocal.no/20160618/norway-boosts-defences-against-unpredictable-russia 193Lydia Tomikw, 2015, ‘Amid Russia fears, Norway to increase military budget to $6B in 2016’. Accessed online on 23 January 2017 at http://www.ibtimes.com/amid-russia-fears-norway-increase-military-budget-6b-2016-2135763 194Idem.
84
CHAPTER V CONCLUSION
The Arctic is situated in the northernmost area on Earth, encompassing roughly eight percent of the globe’s surface and is centered on the North Pole. The Arctic region is divided by the Arctic Circle and includes some of the ice-covered Arctic Ocean as well as surrounding seas and lands. There are several states that have some of part of their sovereignty inside the Arctic Circle which those states are called the Arctic nations. The Arctic nations consist of eight states which are Canada, Denmark (via Greenland), Finland, Iceland, Norway (via Svalbard archipelago), the Russian Federation, Sweden, and the last is the United States of America (via Alaska). The Arctic now has become a region consists of essential and increasing geopolitical importance. The fact that climate change is happening in the world and affecting the Arctic, has made most of the ice-covered Arctic Ocean melted that it resulted to give several access to bigger continents, abundant resources and path to the other Arctic nations. Thus the condition makes Arctic possess huge conflict potential both over sovereignty and natural resources. It has become a huge temptation for many nations to claim over some portions of the long abandoned and ignored strategic region based on their rights to territorial sovereignty due to the result of mass early exploration towards the Arctic.
To Norway, as one of the Arctic nation, Arctic is really important for Norway’s economy and value creation. Norway has a significant position in the Arctic and this can be proved with those Norwegian people who have lived in the far north of Norway. Since Arctic has become a center of geopolitical importance, the situation has opened up new chances and new challenges for the safety and security of Norwegian people living in the northernmost part of the Arctic. One of the reasons why Arctic is very important to Norway is because someof the eighty percent of Norway’s ocean areas are located in the northern part of the Arctic Circle and almost ninety percent of Norway’s export revenues are from economic activity taking place in the sea. Norway also wants to present in the Arctic region by taking the changes in the High North
85 responsibly and uniting everyone in the region in order to prevent any division. Norway’s stance towards the Arctic is very clear which is to embrace deeper international cooperation, in coherent with international law, promote sustainable business development in the North as well as sustainable growth.
The other Arctic nations are also pursuing the same interests like Norway and one is pursuing rather differently. The United States has been one of the major Arctic nation since the purchase of Alaska from Russia in the year of 1867. Shortly after the purchase, the main interests of the United States of America towards the Arctic were economic development and national security. But now, since a lot of things has changed in the international arena, the United States has set three new main priorities which are to maintain international cooperation among Arctic nations; to protect US national and homeland security interests; and to promote responsible stewardship.Not any different that Norway and the US, the Arctic is also vital to Canada’s national identity. The region also carries great potential for the future of Canada. Two of the Canada’s visions for the Arctic are to possess a dynamic economic trade and growth and to become a stable nation in the Arctic. The Arctic is also very vital to the Kingdom of Denmark and the nation has recently become an influental actor in the region. Denmark’s main priorities towards the Arctic that are stated in the Kingdom of Denmark’s Arctic Strategy 2011-2020, are to respond and react to the significant geopolitical and environmental developments in the Arctic and to reposition for the Kingdom of Denmark as well as to empower the nation’s stance as one of the Arctic nations. Meanwhile Iceland’s Arctic policy aims to secure Icelandic interests with regard to the effects of environmental matters, natural resources, climate change, social development and navigation as well as maintaining strong cooperation with other Arctic nations, stakeholders and indigenous people in the region.
The one Arctic nation that used different approach in the Arctic is Russia. To Russia, Arctic is very vital and significant in world affairs and natural resources is always be the vital factor driving Russian policy. The importance of the Arctic to Russia and the rapidly growing international presence in the region, has triggered Russia’s
86 ambitions to stress its stance as a central Arctic nation as clear as possible by economic, political and military means and Russia has shown it by several efforts undertaken in the region. This is completely in opposite with Norway’s core values in the Arctic as Russia is going to use any necessary means in order to pursue their national interests. To the rest Arctic nations except Russia, Norway perceived them differently as they are not considered as an aggressor in the region and they uphold the same value with Norway which is to embrace deeper international cooperation. Meanwhile Russia will perform any means necessary including military power to pursue their national interests therefore has made the state the most anticipated Arctic nation by Norway in the High North. The Russia’s illegal actions perceived by Norway are encompassed two different type of issues which are hard security issue and soft security issue.
In regards to possible and potential tensions in the High North of Norwegia, Norway has recently been aiming a greater defense policy focused on cooperation and deterrence. The cooperation policy stresses on increasing cooperation and relation as well as building trust with Arctic nations meanwhile the deterrence policy stresses on strengthening NATO’s credibility, Norway’s defense capabilities as well as political co- operation across Northern Europe.The Norwegian Parliament also recognized the Long- Term Defense Plan 2013-2016 arranged by the Ministry of Defense of Norway Ine Søreide Eriksen. The Long-Term Defense Plan aims to increase defense spending and address the lacking military capabilities of Norway in the High North. In order to address the lacking military capabilities, Norway with the Long-Term Defense Plan for Norwegian Armed Forces for the period 2013-2016 has formulated several vital elements as recent military objetives which consisting of the conduct of conscription, an increased flexibility and reactivity of the army, increasing the number of well-trained air forces, focusing on cost-effectiveness and savings regarding military spending, the F-35 acquisition, restructuring of the personnel and competencies structures, emergency readiness, and advanced knowledge and understanding on cyber space.
As it has been elaborated thoroughly that in answering the question of this paper on ‘how did Norway implement their defense policy towards Arctic in the
87 year of 2013 to 2016 in coping with military development in the region?’, Norway implemented its defense policy through three initiatives which are unilateraly by improving nation’s own defense capabilities in preventing potential threats, regionally by being cooperative towards Russia and other Arctic Nations, and multilaterally by increasing NATO’s credibility and involving them in the region. Norway has formulated a strategy in the Arctic adapted from NATO collective defense named by Norway as Norwegian Security Strategy. The strategy will work to cope crises and incidents occuring in the High North or harming Norway’s sovereign rights and let the allied military action to take part on national territory. The strategy also stresses on the need for higher preparedness for contributions to international operation and future crises with faster reaction time performed by more professional forces. There are also several changes in the military sector that have been made since the year of 2009 and to be continued uo until now such as the changing of army bases to closer area to the the Arctic, a mass military training involving several parties, reforming and modernizing Norwegian Army, Air Forces and Navy by purchasing 52 F-35 aircraft, modernize and advanced armoured vehicles, more capable Nansen frigates, more advanced combat support ship, the replacement of Ula submarines, lightly armed icebreaker/OPVs and barentshav OPVs that are capable on operating in icy conditions. The defense plan is also suggesting to increase the allocation of budget to defense sector by NOK 150 billion or equals to $18.3 billion USD in order to have the ability to purchase advanced military capabilities. In supporting the defense plan, Norway’s Defense Minister Ine Søreide Eriksen is also suggesting to eliminate several branches in the military sector such as the elimination of 1,500 jobs (1,100 from military staff and 450 from civilian), the liguidation of 700 men from second battalion of the Northern Brigade in Troms County, and the closing of several bases. It’s very risky indeed but Norway is going to need all power it could get to increase its military capabilities.
88
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. BOOKS
Brende, Utenriksminister. The Arctic: Important for Norway, Important for the World. New York: Harvard International Review, 2015.
Chuter, David. Managing Defence in a Democracy: Policy Formulation and Execution. New York: Routledge, 2006.
Keskitalo, Carina. “International Region-Building: Development of the Arctic as International Region, Cooperation and Conflict.” Dalam Negotiating the Arctic, oleh E.C.H Keskitalo, 34-42. New York: Routledge, 2007.
Keskitalo, E.C.H. Negotiating the Arctic. New York: Routledge, 2004.
Novotny, D. Torn between American and China: Elite perceptions and Indonesian Foreign Policy. Singapore: The Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 2010.
Tilman, Robert O. “The Enemy Beyond: External Threat Perceptions in the ASEAN.” 2. Singapore: The Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 1984.
—. The Enemy Beyond: External Threat Perceptions in the ASEAN Region. Singapore: The Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 1984.
2. SCHOLARLY JOURNALS, LECTURER & INTERVIEW
Berger, Thomas R., dan Alexei Rodionov. “The Arctic: Choices for Peace and Security.” West Vancouver, 2012: 114-118.
Griffiths, Franklyn, Rob Huebert, dan P. Whitney Lackenbauer. “Canada and the Changing Arctic - Sovereignty, Security, Stewardship.” Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 2011: 36.
Heininen, Lassi. “Foreign Policy Interests of Finland in the Arctic.” 20111: 110.
J, Berg. “Norwegian plan recommends airbase closure.” Jane's Defence Weekly, 2011: 13.
89
Rousseau, David L. “Identity, Power and Threat Perception.” New York: Sage Publications, 2007.
Tringham, dan Stevenson B. “Norway reconfirms plans to acquire 52 F-35.” Flightglobal, 2015: 25.
Young, Oran R. “Arctic Politics.” Hanover: University Press of New England, 1992: 193-194.
OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS & STATEMENTS
Brzezinski, Z. “The Framework of East-West Reconciliation.” Foreign Affairs. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/russian-federation/1968-01-01/framework- east-west-reconciliation (diakses January 2, 2017).
“Geostrategic Competition in the Arctic: Routes and Resources.” Soufan Group. http://soufangroup.com/tsg-intelbrief-geostrategic-competition-in-the-arctic-routes- and-resources/ (diakses November 27, 2016).
“Geostrategic of the Arctic: Driving competitions and contests in the region.” Soufan Group. http://soufangroup.com/tsg-intelbrief-geostrategic-competition-in-the-arctic- routes-and-resources/ (diakses November 27, 2016).
Heininen, Lassi. “Danish Arctic Strategy.” Geopolitics North. http://www.geopoliticsnorth.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1 57:danish-preliminary-arctic-strategy&catid=40&Itemid=108 (diakses January 7, 2017).
“Norway's Arctic Policy: Creating value, managing resources, confronting climate change and fostering knowledge.” Regjeringen. https://www.regjeringen.no/globalassets/departementene/ud/vedlegg/nord/nordklode n_en.pdf (diakses November 29, 2016).
“Norway's key position in the region.” Regjeringen. https://www.regjeringen.no/en/dokumenter/report_summary/id2076191/ (diakses November 27, 2016).
“Norwegian Army Bases.” Global Security. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/no-haren.htm (diakses January 15, 2017).
90
“Norwegian Land Systems.” Global Fire Power. http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength- detail.asp?country_id=norway (diakses January 15, 2017).
“Norwegian Major Facilities of Air Force.” Global Security. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/no-luftforsvaret.htm (diakses January 15, 2017).
“Norwegian Manpower.” Global Fire Power. http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength- detail.asp?country_id=norway (diakses January 15, 2017).
“Norwegian Military Budget.” Global Fire Power. http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength- detail.asp?country_id=norway (diakses January 17, 2017).
“Norwegian Naval Power.” Global Fire Power. http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength- detail.asp?country_id=norway (diakses January 16, 2017).
Padrtova, Barbora. “Russian approach towards the Arctic region.” CENAA. http://cenaa.org/analysis/russian-approach-towards-the-arctic-region/ (diakses January 4, 2017).
Rahbek-Clemmensen, Jon. “'Arctic turn' in Denmark's foreign policy.” The Arctic Institute. http://www.thearcticinstitute.org/denmarks-strategic-interests-in-the-arctic- its-the-greenlandic-connection-stupid/ (diakses January 7, 2017).
“The Canadians ambitious on their sovereignty over some portion in the Arctic.” Soufan Group. http://soufangroup.com/tsg-intelbrief-geostrategic-competition-in-the- arctic-routes-and-resources/ (diakses November 27, 2016).
Zysk, Kataryzna. “Russia's Arctic Strategy, Ambitions and Constraints.” Norwegian Institute for Defence Studies. 2010. http://www.ndu.edu/press/lib/images/jfq- 57/zysk.pdf (diakses January 6, 2017).
ACADEMIC REPORTS
Brende, Borge. “The Arctic: Important for Norway, Important for the World.” Harvard International Review. 16 April 2015. http://hir.harvard.edu/the-arctic- important-for-norway-important-for-the-world/ (diakses November 30, 2016).
91
Stein, Janice Gross. “Threat Perception in International Relations.” Surrey. 2013. https://www.surrey.ac.uk/politics/research/researchareasofstaff/isppsummeracademy/ instructors%20/Stein%20- %20Threat%20Perception%20in%20International%20Relations.pdf (diakses December 4, 2016).
MEDIA ARCTICLES
“Arctic.” NSIDC. https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/arctic-meteorology/arctic.html (diakses November 27, 2016).
“Arctic.” Encyclopedia Britannica. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/33100/Arctic (diakses October 10, 2016).
“Arctic.” World Arctic. http://www.worldatlas.com/webimage/countrys/polar/arctic.htm (diakses December 16, 2016).
“Arctic Geography.” Polar Discovery. http://polardiscovery.whoi.edu/arctic/geography.html (diakses December 16, 2016).
“Arctic Sea Route.” Pacific Environment. http://pacificenvironment.org/blog/wp- content/uploads/Arctic-Sea-Route-1wide_newsletter.jpg (diakses November 27, 2016).
“Battle North Cape utter destruction battleship scharnhorst.” War History Online. https://www.warhistoryonline.com/featured/battle-north-cape-utter-destruction- battleship-scharnhorst.html (diakses January 2, 2017).
Brzenzinski, Matthem. “Who's afraid of Norway?” New York Times. 2013. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/24/magazine/who-s-afraid-of-norway.html (diakses January 21, 2017).
“Definition of the Arab Spring.” Middle East. http://middleeast.about.com/od/humanrightsdemocracy/a/Definition-Of-The-Arab- Spring.htm (diakses November 29, 2016).
“Evolution Arctic territorial claims and agreements timeline 1903 - present.” Stimson. http://www.stimson.org/content/evolution-arctic-territorial-claims-and- agreements-timeline-1903-present (diakses November 27, 2016).
92
“Lend-Lease Act.” History. http://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/lend-lease- act (diakses January 2, 2017).
“Military Policy.” Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_policy (diakses December 4, 2016).
“Norway Map.” Human Flower Project. http://humanflowerproject.com/images/uploads/Norway-map318.jpg (diakses November 27, 2016).
“Qualitative Measure.” Social Research Methods. http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/qual.php (diakses October 12, 2016).
“Svalbard Islands.” Visit Norway. https://www.visitnorway.com/places-to- go/svalbard-islands/ (diakses January 2, 2017).
“The Arctic Map.” Athropolis. http://www.athropolis.com/graphics/arcticmap- temp.gif (diakses November 27, 2016).
“The Battle of Barents Sea.” History Learning Site. http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/world-war-two/war-in-the-atlantic/the-battle-of- barents-sea/ (diakses January 2, 2017).
“What do geopolitics and geostrategic mean.” CSS Forum. http://www.cssforum.com.pk/css-compulsory-subjects/current-affairs/35498-what- do-geopolitics-geo-strategic-mean.htm (diakses December 8, 2016).
“What is qualitative research?” Qualitative Research Consultants Association. http://www.qrca.org/?page=whatisqualresearch (diakses October 12, 2016).
93