This is not another geopolitical commentary on the Arctic. It is a visionary peace proposal that can save the region from militarised rivalry and ecological ruin. A blueprint for shared security, sustainable development, and human dignity — benefitting Greenland, the Arctic, and the rest of us.
By Jan Oberg – TFF director
I. Four Principles for a New Arctic Vision
The Arctic is often framed as a cold arena of rivalry — a place where great powers test each other’s resolve. But this worldview is outdated, unimaginative, and ultimately self‑defeating. The Arctic is not a vacuum waiting to be militarised; it is a living region, a climate stabiliser, and a cultural homeland whose future will shape the future of humanity. If we begin from that understanding, a far more rational Arctic order becomes possible — one that is peaceful, cooperative, and centred on the people who actually live there.
This vision rests on four practical principles. None of them is utopian. All of them are grounded in common sense, human dignity, and long‑term strategic thinking.
1. The Greenlanders Must Stand at the Centre of Any Arctic Vision
Greenland is not a strategic prize; it is a society with its own civilisation, its own knowledge systems, and its own right to shape the region’s future. Any Arctic governance model that sidelines the Greenlanders is doomed to fail. Their ecological knowledge, cultural continuity, and lived experience of the ice make them indispensable partners in any sustainable future. This is not naïve — it is the only realistic foundation for legitimate Arctic governance.
Empowerment becomes the most effective form of legitimacy.
2. Cooperation Reduces the Need for Militarisation — and Saves Enormous Resources
Militarisation in the Arctic is not a sign of strength; it is a symptom of distrust. Russia, with by far the longest Arctic coastline, is an indispensable actor. China, though not an Arctic state, is a global scientific and economic presence whose engagement in the region is inevitable. The United States, the Nordic countries, Canada, and others all have legitimate interests. But legitimacy can’t be based on rivalry. Interests do not mean intimidation. And influence isn’t about militarisation. There are more intelligent approaches.
Ice‑capable destroyers, nuclear submarines, hardened bases, and satellite surveillance systems are among the most expensive military assets on Earth. Every krone, dollar, ruble, or yuan spent on Arctic militarisation is money not spent on climate adaptation, education, health, renewable energy, or the wellbeing of Arctic communities. When states share data, coordinate policies, and build joint institutions, the perceived need for military posturing naturally declines — and so do the costs. This is not naïve — it is an intelligent, sustainable strategy.
Cooperation becomes the most effective — and the most economical — form of disarmament.
3. Sustainable Use of Arctic Resources Should Benefit Humanity, Not Only the Armed and Powerful
The Arctic’s minerals, fisheries, shipping routes, and scientific knowledge are globally significant. To treat them as spoils for those with the largest fleets is not only unjust; it is irrational. A civilised international order uses resources wisely, protects fragile ecosystems, and distributes benefits fairly. Sustainable development is a planetary necessity – that militarist power politics makes impossible. And when done cooperatively, it can serve all of humanity, not just those who can project force. Those who now think “oh, how naive” have no idea about how to otherwise prevent ecological collapse and geopolitical conflict.Sustainability becomes the most effective form of prosperity.
4. The United Nations Should Serve as Custodian of Peace and Shared Stewardship
The Arctic is too important — ecologically, climatically, culturally — to be governed by big but not ‘great’ powers’ fragmented national interests. The United Nations provides the legitimacy, continuity, and normative framework needed to anchor a peaceful Arctic order. A UN‑recognised Arctic Peace and Sustainability Zone would embed demilitarisation, indigenous rights, scientific cooperation, and sustainable development in a global framework that transcends short‑term tensions. Shared stewardship becomes the most effective form of security.If these four principles are accepted — and they are neither unrealistic nor naive — then a new question emerges: What would an Arctic governance system look like if it were built on legitimacy, cooperation, sustainability, and shared stewardship? The answer is a blueprint for a demilitarised Arctic, jointly governed, scientifically grounded, ecologically protected, and centred on the people who call it home.
II. A Practical Blueprint for a Peaceful Arctic Future
1. A Demilitarised Arctic: Security Through Cooperation
A peaceful Arctic begins with the establishment of an Arctic Demilitarised Zone — a region where military assets, bases, and exercises are gradually phased out and replaced with civilian, scientific, and humanitarian functions. This does not diminish national sovereignty; it simply recognises that the Arctic’s most pressing threats are not military in nature. Melting ice, extreme weather, collapsing ecosystems, and unpredictable sea routes cannot be deterred by submarines or fighter jets.A demilitarised Arctic would reduce tensions between major powers, prevent accidents and escalation, and protect fragile ecosystems. It would also free enormous financial resources currently tied up in polar‑ready military systems. Verification would rely on satellite monitoring, open data, and periodic inspections — ideally under UN auspices. The Arctic would become a symbol of what cooperative security looks like in the 21st century: not the absence of sovereignty, but the presence of trust.The US insistence on a ‘Golden Dome’ – and Greenland as vital for the US to control – is one big destabiliser because it aims at enabling the US to destroy Russia or China and (hope to) shoot down retaliatory second-strike missiles from either. This lowers the threshold for the US starting a nuclear war because its decision-makers may hope it can start and win a nuclear war without cost. The solution to this – terror-based – philosophy is a new agreement between the US and Russia about reducing and finally abolishing nuclear weapons. It is not to further militarise Greenland.
2. A New Governance Architecture: The Arctic Cooperation Council
The Arctic Council, while valuable, is no longer sufficient. It was never designed to handle today’s geopolitical tensions or the accelerating climate crisis. A new Arctic Cooperation Council would build on the strengths of the existing Council while correcting its weaknesses. It would be inclusive, transparent, and capable of making binding decisions in areas where cooperation is essential.Greenlandic authorities and indigenous peoples would be full co‑decision makers. Arctic states, observer states, and scientific organisations would participate in a structure that uses qualified majority voting, clear mandates, and indigenous veto rights on cultural and ecological matters. Its remit would include environmental protection, sustainable resource management, shipping regulation, scientific cooperation, emergency response, and dealing with conflict to prevent violence. This is not a supranational authority; it is a place where states and peoples coordinate policies, resolve disputes, and build trust.
3. Greenland as a Special Responsibility Zone
Greenland is the moral and strategic heart of the Arctic. Its people have endured centuries of colonialism, strategic exploitation, and geopolitical pressure. A peaceful Arctic future must therefore include a Greenland Partnership Compact, anchored in the UN system, that guarantees full respect for Greenlandic self‑determination and protects the island from coercive diplomacy. The Compact would ensure that Greenland retains priority access to revenues from local resources and receives sustained investment in education, health, cultural preservation, and sustainable infrastructure.Greenland would also host a UN Arctic Peace Centre — a hub for research, diplomacy, and Indigenous knowledge. This approach recognises that Greenland is not a passive object of international interest but an active subject with its own aspirations.
4. Sustainable Resource Use: A Civilised Alternative to Extraction Rivalry
The Arctic’s resources must be used wisely, sparingly, and for the benefit of all. This requires strict ecological thresholds, Indigenous consent, transparent impact assessments, and shared revenue mechanisms. It requires clean shipping corridors, slow‑steaming regulations, and the designation of large protected areas — Arctic Peace Parks — that safeguard biodiversity and cultural heritage. This is responsible development, the only kind that makes sense in a region whose ecological health affects the entire planet.
5. The UN as Custodian: Completing UNCLOS
The United Nations would anchor the entire system through a suite of new instruments: a UN Arctic Demilitarisation Treaty, a UN Arctic Commons Charter, a UN‑Greenland Partnership Compact, a UN Sustainable Resource Convention for the Arctic, and a UN Arctic Mobility and Knowledge Accord.
These instruments would not replace the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). On the contrary, they would complete it. UNCLOS provides the legal foundation for maritime zones, navigation rights, and resource claims. But it does not address demilitarisation, Indigenous rights, cooperative governance, or sustainable development. The UN framework proposed here would fill those gaps while fully respecting UNCLOS principles. In this way, the Arctic becomes not a legal vacuum but a region where international law is strengthened, clarified, and modernised.
III. Conclusion: A More Rational, Civilised, and Visionary Arctic Future
The Arctic is not destined to become a militarised arena of suspicion and strategic posturing. That path is simply intellectually lazy and unimaginative. What this blueprint demonstrates is that a different Arctic future is not only possible but profoundly more rational. It is more cost‑effective, more stabilising, more respectful of the people who live there, and far more beneficial to humanity than anything conceived through the narrow lens of transactional geopolitics.
This vision recognises the realities of the 21st century. Russia’s vast Arctic coastline makes it indispensable. China’s scientific and economic presence makes it inevitable. The United States, the Nordic countries, Canada, and others all have legitimate interests.
This is not naïve. What is naïve is believing that more bases, more submarines, and more strategic signalling will somehow produce peace, development and cooperation – all of which are dealy needed. What is naïve is assuming that the Arctic can be militarised without consequence, or that the climate crisis can be managed through deterrence.
What is naïve is imagining that the future can be secured by repeating the – bad – habits of the past.
Politics, at its best, is the art of imagining what does not yet exist and then building the institutions that make it real. It is the ability to include others in a shared horizon of development and security. It is the courage to say: we can do better than rivalry, better than fear, better than the logic of the strongest.
This blueprint is an invitation to return to that deeper meaning of politics—the politics of vision, responsibility, and common purpose—of thinking globally and locally instead of only nationally.
And it is no coincidence that such a proposal arises from the traditions of peace research and future studies. These fields have always insisted that security is not the absence of war but the presence of cooperation about the realisation of society’s potentials. That the future is not predetermined but shaped by choices; that humanity advances when it replaces domination with dialogue and competition with creativity.
The Arctic, perhaps more than any other region, calls for this kind of thinking — thinking that is rigorous, long‑term, interdisciplinary, and grounded in respect for the lived realities of local communities. How else to develop peace and security?
The question is not whether this vision is too ambitious. The Arctic and the world can not afford anything less. A militarised Arctic offers only instability, resource waste, and ecological destruction. All involved ‘big’ powers must rethink and think out of their common militarist box.
A cooperative, demilitarised, UN‑anchored Arctic offers stability, sustainability, and shared benefit for us all. The Arctic is a brilliant opportunity to think in new ways and shape a more civilised future. There Are Many Alternatives (TAMA), and this proposal is not the only one. But the present bullying build-up to visionless raw exploitation with military power projection and nuclearism, however, can not be one of them.
The world needs visions, images of a better future and constructive-creative thinking to realise that better world. TFF welcomes your constructive ideas and visions, because we cannot drive toward a better, more desirable place with our eyes fixed on the rearview mirror.
