Commentary by Donald Gasper*
Last month, at a time when one might have thought that there were more urgent matters to attend to back home, the Trump administration announced with great fanfare a series of steps to increase its presence in Greenland. The Americans have just opened a consulate in the capital, Nuuk, and are offering US$12 million in aid. These steps, widely criticised by wide swathes of public opinion in Greenland, come just eight months after the US president cancelled a visit to Copenhagen in a huff when his offer to buy the vast island territory from Denmark was snubbed.
At a briefing on April 23, a senior State Department official presented the US move as aimed at countering what he described as Russia’s “military build-up in the Arctic” and Chinese efforts to “winkle [‘wiggle’] their way” into Greenland. He said China by offering support for expanding Greenland’s tourism industry was seeking control over its strategic assets.
“That would be problematic for the United States and our Nato allies,” warned the official. “It would not be in our interest for China to secure control of critical infrastructure in Greenland, any more than it’s in our interest to see China secure control of critical ports in Europe or 5G communication networks.”
On April 20, Carla Sands, the US ambassador to Denmark, had issued a statement headlined ‘Wake Up to the Arctic’s Importance!’, which attacked the Arctic presence of the Russian Federation, a member the Arctic Council, and warned against China’s proposal for a Polar Silk Road focused on new Arctic shipping routes and access to natural resources:
“The People’s Republic of China (PRC) calls itself a ‘near Arctic state’ even though nearly 1,500 kilometres separate the Arctic and China”, says the statement, implying that China has no business to be in the region at all. ‘The PRC is trying to insinuate itself into the region because it sees the Arctic as another place to advance its predatory economic interests and project its authoritarian values. It is attempting to gain a physical foothold in the region by building icebreakers, including working on a nuclear-powered icebreaker, deploying unmanned ice stations, and engaging in large and sophisticated data collection efforts throughout the region.” (By the same yardstick one could ask what business the US has in Asia, the Middle East and other regions throughout the globe, thousands of kilometres from its shores.)
Sands was repeating the line taken by US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on May 6 last year when he chided China for its participation in Arctic affairs, contesting its claim to be a near Arctic nation.
So is China entitled to take part in the peaceful development of the region? Well, it happens that this year marks the 100th anniversary of the signing of the Svalbard Treaty of 1920 which apart from awarding Norway sovereignty over Svalbard (formerly known as Spitsbergen) also allowed its signatories to have access to the island’s fishing, hunting and natural resources. Many of the signatories, for example Saudi Arabia, which signed up in 1925, are far from the region.
The former Republic of China also acceded to the Svalbard Treaty in that year as one of the earliest contracting parties. Subsequently the People’s Republic of China was acknowledged by the international community as having inherited the treaty rights of its predecessor.
In 1996, the PRC became a member of the International Arctic Science Committee and since 1999 it has successfully conducted several scientific expeditions in the region. In 2004 it set up an Arctic Research Base at the Yellow River Station and the following year hosted the Arctic Science Summit. In 2013 it was admitted as an official observer to the newly established Arctic Council, so there can be no doubt that the world acknowledges its legitimate role in the region.
Far from “wiggling” its way into the Arctic, China’s proposed participation in various projects was greeted with enthusiasm by the seven Arctic countries, especially after the financial collapse in many Western states in 2008. But under US pressure Denmark in 2016 turned down an offer from General Nice Group, a Hong Kong-based firm, to buy an abandoned naval base in Greenland.
Greenland’s Premier Kim Kielsen visited Beijing late in 2018 and his delegation met representatives of engineering and construction giants China Communications Construction Company Limited and Beijing Construction Engineering Group to discuss a plan to build three new airports to facilitate tourism. It fell through due to Washington’s bullying of its Nato ally, Denmark.
Such heavy-handed US tactics risk further alienating public opinion in the Arctic countries. Moreover, by attempting to demonise and thwart China Washington is unnecessarily stoking up tensions at a time when Beijing’s cooperation is essential in tackling global challenges like global climate change and the novel corona virus crisis.
*The author is a Hong Kong-based journalist and analyst
