Yaroslava Kutsai moved recently to Reykjavík from Kiev to pursue her master’s at the University of Iceland. Here she writes about the effects of global warming in the Arctic and Iceland as a geopolitical player.
What kind of place is Iceland in the eyes of foreigners? In the Middle Ages, it was known as Thule, far-northern mystical land beyond discovered borders, and unfortunate possessor of the Gateway to Hell, as so Europeans interpreted the devastating restlessness of Hekla volcano. Thanks to Jules Verne, the father of science fiction, it is here—in the depth of Snæfellsjökull glacier—since 1864 rests the Center of the Earth, where one who has entered it could get lost and, if still alive after a tormenting journey full of regrets (this is just what you receive in Iceland for being curious and skimpy at the same time), eventually find oneself in southern Italy (Amen).
How to be nice
When it comes to self-determination, little nordic nations are not ashamed of extremes. Fellow North Atlantic islanders Faroese had a writer William Heinesen who called their capital Tórshavn the Navel of the World. Icelanders have a president Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson who suggests that his overseas partners consider Reykjavík the Core of the Arctic.
Iceland offers something very few countries have at their disposal—neutrality. Iceland is well-aware of how to be nice. The Arctic Circle, its foreground multi-faceted project, has become the largest international gathering of leaders and dignitaries willing to discuss matters of the circumpolar region, immensely affected by global warming.
The event was attended by about 1,900 delegates from over 50 countries, including high-profile figures such as Prince Albert of Monaco and president of France François Hollande. All of distinguished guests spoke of solidarity, not omitting the issues related to livelihood of indigenous people, and the Arctic as a chance to transform ‘business as usual.’ Pope Francis, the most environmentally preoccupied of pontiffs, did not make it to Harpa, teeming with people and hope, but sent a letter blessing the endeavor.
Why then media outside Iceland covered the summit, featuring quite a bunch of VIPs, by such a narrow margin? The only answer I have: it was simply too nice.
Being a meeting point for representatives of the most ambitious states, who name themselves major stakeholders in the Arctic and who are accustomed to protect their peace with force, as a geopolitical player Iceland looks… cute. Military operations? Heaven forbid! Everybody, without exception, is for peace. Well, at least, here—in the most peaceful country on the planet.
The rush for the Arctic’s abundant resources
Reykjavík still remembers how three decades ago it was hosting a meeting between US President Ronald Reagan and General Secretary of the Communist Party of the USSR Mikhail Gorbachev, which is generally considered the first step towards the end of the Cold War. Today the city is plunged in talks about the rush for the Arctic’s abundant resources.
Thawing is happening even faster than it was expected—by 2080 the sea ice cap might disappear. The area—much bigger than the whole Europe—is becoming more accessible for exploration and development, which has already proven to advance with traditional jostling of ‘standard-bearers.’ If there is something yet no one owned, why should a particular entity seize it and exploit, lest anyone else does it? Why not to agree on restrictions for everyone for the safety of all?
Perhaps Icelanders would challenge the very human nature by giving up drilling in their continental shelf. The same is fair for Faroese, who said at the assembly that despite rather slow progress in oil exploration they will not give up this enterprise, for they even established a Ministry of oil. Why? With their renewable energy, these countries can be among the first to become carbon-free, prevent themselves from dealing with the dirty aftermath of oil extraction and focus on the promotion of beauty and purity of their nature—for the long-lasting and stable benefit. These countries could become an evidence that alternative is possible.
As concluded Alexander Shestakov, the Director of WWF Global Arctic Programme, in the panel on the situation with investments for the region, the approach needed is doing when knowing—not doing for knowing. Addressing the ‘why?’ might not contribute to the niceness of the Core of the Arctic, but it could gain it more attention during the Arctic Circle. Iceland is already nice enough to let itself be more critical.
Yaroslava Kutsai is a journalist focusing on issues that have to do with identity and environmental justice and is currently writing her thesis on climate change as a media phenomenon. Back in her home country she started as a staff reporter in daily news program Time at 5 TV Channel, then contributed articles to the local edition of National Geographic and several national newspapers such as The Ukrainian Week and Mirror Weekly.
Yaroslava Kutsai moved recently to Reykjavík from Kiev to pursue her master’s at the University of Iceland. Here she writes about the effects of global warming in the Arctic and Iceland as a geopolitical player.
What kind of place is Iceland in the eyes of foreigners? In the Middle Ages, it was known as Thule, far-northern mystical land beyond discovered borders, and unfortunate possessor of the Gateway to Hell, as so Europeans interpreted the devastating restlessness of Hekla volcano. Thanks to Jules Verne, the father of science fiction, it is here—in the depth of Snæfellsjökull glacier—since 1864 rests the Center of the Earth, where one who has entered it could get lost and, if still alive after a tormenting journey full of regrets (this is just what you receive in Iceland for being curious and skimpy at the same time), eventually find oneself in southern Italy (Amen).
How to be nice
When it comes to self-determination, little nordic nations are not ashamed of extremes. Fellow North Atlantic islanders Faroese had a writer William Heinesen who called their capital Tórshavn the Navel of the World. Icelanders have a president Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson who suggests that his overseas partners consider Reykjavík the Core of the Arctic.
Iceland offers something very few countries have at their disposal—neutrality. Iceland is well-aware of how to be nice. The Arctic Circle, its foreground multi-faceted project, has become the largest international gathering of leaders and dignitaries willing to discuss matters of the circumpolar region, immensely affected by global warming.
The event was attended by about 1,900 delegates from over 50 countries, including high-profile figures such as Prince Albert of Monaco and president of France François Hollande. All of distinguished guests spoke of solidarity, not omitting the issues related to livelihood of indigenous people, and the Arctic as a chance to transform ‘business as usual.’ Pope Francis, the most environmentally preoccupied of pontiffs, did not make it to Harpa, teeming with people and hope, but sent a letter blessing the endeavor.
Why then media outside Iceland covered the summit, featuring quite a bunch of VIPs, by such a narrow margin? The only answer I have: it was simply too nice.
Being a meeting point for representatives of the most ambitious states, who name themselves major stakeholders in the Arctic and who are accustomed to protect their peace with force, as a geopolitical player Iceland looks… cute. Military operations? Heaven forbid! Everybody, without exception, is for peace. Well, at least, here—in the most peaceful country on the planet.
The rush for the Arctic’s abundant resources
Reykjavík still remembers how three decades ago it was hosting a meeting between US President Ronald Reagan and General Secretary of the Communist Party of the USSR Mikhail Gorbachev, which is generally considered the first step towards the end of the Cold War. Today the city is plunged in talks about the rush for the Arctic’s abundant resources.
Thawing is happening even faster than it was expected—by 2080 the sea ice cap might disappear. The area—much bigger than the whole Europe—is becoming more accessible for exploration and development, which has already proven to advance with traditional jostling of ‘standard-bearers.’ If there is something yet no one owned, why should a particular entity seize it and exploit, lest anyone else does it? Why not to agree on restrictions for everyone for the safety of all?
Perhaps Icelanders would challenge the very human nature by giving up drilling in their continental shelf. The same is fair for Faroese, who said at the assembly that despite rather slow progress in oil exploration they will not give up this enterprise, for they even established a Ministry of oil. Why? With their renewable energy, these countries can be among the first to become carbon-free, prevent themselves from dealing with the dirty aftermath of oil extraction and focus on the promotion of beauty and purity of their nature—for the long-lasting and stable benefit. These countries could become an evidence that alternative is possible.
As concluded Alexander Shestakov, the Director of WWF Global Arctic Programme, in the panel on the situation with investments for the region, the approach needed is doing when knowing—not doing for knowing. Addressing the ‘why?’ might not contribute to the niceness of the Core of the Arctic, but it could gain it more attention during the Arctic Circle. Iceland is already nice enough to let itself be more critical.
Yaroslava Kutsai is a journalist focusing on issues that have to do with identity and environmental justice and is currently writing her thesis on climate change as a media phenomenon. Back in her home country she started as a staff reporter in daily news program Time at 5 TV Channel, then contributed articles to the local edition of National Geographic and several national newspapers such as The Ukrainian Week and Mirror Weekly.
