DAW 23rd January 2026, Mains Answer Writting 2027

DAW 23rd January 2026, Mains Answer Writting 2027

Question

“The Arctic has emerged from strategic marginality to geopolitical centrality in recent years.” Discuss the factors responsible for this shift and examine its implications for global power politics. (250 Words, 15 Marks).

Model Answer

Approach: Introduction:

  • Briefly highlight the Arctic’s shift from a “zone of peace” to a geopolitical hotspot, driven by climate change, resources, and strategic rivalry.

Body:

  • Explain the factors behind the shift- climate-security nexus, resource competition, new shipping routes, military significance, and legal ambiguity.

  • Analyse why tensions are rising- breakdown of Arctic Council cooperation, sovereignty disputes (NWP, Greenland), Russia–NATO rivalry, and entry of extra-regional powers like China.

  • Examine implications for global power politics- trade realignment, intensified great-power rivalry, weakening multilateralism, and spillover into Indo-Pacific geopolitics.

Conclusion:

  • Conclude by stressing the need for rules-based governance, strengthened institutions, and sustainable cooperation to prevent the Arctic from becoming a future conflict zone.

Introduction:

  • The Arctic, long regarded as a frozen periphery and even a “zone of peace,” has rapidly transformed into a theatre of high-stakes geopolitics. Accelerated climate change has unlocked vast natural resources and new maritime routes, drawing the attention of major powers. As a result, the region has moved from strategic marginality to geopolitical centrality, where environmental change, economic opportunity, and military competition intersect.

Body: Factors Responsible for the Arctic’s Strategic Shift:

  • Climate Change as the Primary Catalyst:

  • The Arctic is warming at 2–4 times the global average (IPCC).

  • Rapid ice melt has converted previously inaccessible waters into navigable routes and exploitable zones.

  • This climate–security nexus has transformed the Arctic from a natural barrier into a strategic enabler.

  • Resource Competition and Energy Security:

  • USGS (2009) estimates: 13% of undiscovered global oil (~90 billion barrels) and 30% of undiscovered natural gas.

  • Greenland hosts significant rare earth minerals, critical for green technologies and defence industries.

  • Arctic fisheries and seabed minerals further add to economic incentives.

Outcome: The Arctic has become central to global energy security and strategic mineral supply chains.

  • Opening of New Strategic Shipping Routes:

  • Northern Sea Route (NSR) and Northwest Passage (NWP) are increasingly knowable.

  • NSR can reduce Asia–Europe shipping distance by ~8,000 km (≈40%) compared to the Suez Canal.

  • China views these routes as part of its Polar Silk Road, bypassing traditional chokepoints.

Outcome: The Arctic is emerging as a critical artery of future global trade.

  • Strategic and Military Significance:

  • The Arctic offers:

  • Shortest intercontinental missile trajectories and Key submarine access routes via the GIUK Gap.

  • Militarisation trends:

  • Russia has revived 50+ Soviet-era bases and deployed nuclear submarines.

  • NATO has expanded exercises after Finland and Sweden joined NATO.

  • The U.S. Arctic Strategy (2023) calls the region a “strategic buffer.

Outcome: The Arctic is now embedded in global deterrence and power projection.

  • Legal Ambiguity and Governance Vacuum:

  • Unlike Antarctica, the Arctic:

  • Is not demilitarised.

  • Is governed mainly by UNCLOS.

  • States can extend seabed claims beyond EEZs based on continental shelf continuity.

  • Canada, Denmark, and Russia have submitted overlapping claims.

Outcome: Legal uncertainty encourages unilateralism and strategic competition. Why Are Tensions High in the Arctic?

  • Breakdown of Cooperative Governance:

  • The Arctic Council, a non-military forum for environmental protection and scientific cooperation, has been paralysed since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine (2022).

  • The suspension of engagement with Russia has weakened confidence-building mechanisms, encouraging unilateral actions and militarisation.

  • Disputes over Strategic Sea Routes:

  • The Northwest Passage (NWP) dispute reflects rising tensions, with Canada claiming it as internal waters and the United States asserting it as an international strait.

  • This highlights the clash between state sovereignty and freedom of navigation in the Arctic.

  • Strategic Contestation over Greenland: Renewed U.S. interest in Greenland on “national security” grounds, coupled with the presence of the Pituffik (Thule) Air Base, has intensified geopolitical competition. Denmark’s security reinforcement signals increasing securitisation of the region.

  • Russia–NATO Military Rivalry: With all Arctic Council members except Russia belonging to NATO, the Arctic has become a frontline of Russia–NATO confrontation. Russia’s Arctic military buildup claims over Svalbard, and nuclear-powered icebreaker fleet have heightened NATO security concerns.

  • Entry of Extra-Regional Powers: China’s self-designation as a “Near-Arctic State” (2018) and its investments in Arctic shipping routes, energy projects, and icebreakers, often with Russia, have globalised Arctic geopolitics, linking it to Eurasian and Indo-Pacific rivalries.

Implications for Global Power Politics:

  • Redefinition of global trade geography, potentially reducing reliance on Suez.

  • Intensification of great power rivalry (Russia–NATO–China).

  • Weaponisation of climate change, where environmental shifts alter power balances.

  • Decline of cooperative multilateralism, reflected in Arctic Council paralysis.

  • Spill over effects on Indo-Pacific and Indian Ocean strategies.

Way Forward:

  • Revitalise Arctic Governance:

  • Restore functional cooperation within the Arctic Council.

  • Establish crisis-management and military transparency mechanisms.

  • Strengthen Legal Frameworks:

  • Clarify UNCLOS provisions on extended continental shelves.

  • Explore supplementary agreements for Arctic-specific challenges.

  • Demilitarisation and Confidence Building:

  • Arctic-specific arms control or military restraint measures.

  • Enhanced search-and-rescue and disaster-response cooperation.

  • Sustainable and Inclusive Development:

  • Strict environmental safeguards for shipping and resource extraction.

  • Protection of indigenous rights and livelihoods.

  • Constructive Role for Non-Arctic States:

  • Encourage responsible participation by observers like India and China.

  • Promote science-led, climate-centric engagement over strategic rivalry.

Conclusion:

  • The Arctic’s transformation from a frozen frontier to a geopolitical hotspot epitomises how climate change, commerce, and competition are reshaping global politics. As ice retreats, strategic ambitions advance, heightening both opportunity and instability. Unless cooperative governance mechanisms are strengthened, the Arctic risks becoming a new flashpoint in an increasingly multipolar and militarised world order. A rules-based, environmentally sustainable, and inclusive approach remains essential for long-term global stability.