The small group of international scientists, politicians and business leaders are using the Arctic research station for urgent talks on how to fast-forward a low carbon economy. They have come to the snowy archipelago of Svalbard, a few hundred kilometers from the North Pole, to hear the latest bad news on melting glaciers and climate change.
“Nowhere are the implications of global warming more visible than in the Arctic. Ecosystems as well as livelihoods are presently undergoing rapid change. In spite of all the evidence provided by science, most governments in the world have failed to take the necessary action,” said Anders Wijkman, the Swedish member of the European parliament (MEP) who is chairman of this special symposium.
After hearing predictions that 30 percent of species could be extinct and a fifth of Bangladesh underwater before 2100, he urges the removal of “all subsidies on fossil fuels” and a much stronger commitment to renewable power in measures to build a sustainable future.
Yet outside the room, in the gray Arctic waters, an oil rush looms which threatens more carbon emissions and the risk to the natural world of an accident similar to the 2010 Deepwater Horizon spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
The drilling also threatens to spark territorial disputes and saber rattling, such as the bellicose noises made by Argentina over British companies seeking oil off the Falkland Islands.
While the polar bears and arctic fox of Svalbard have grazing rights, the legal standing of different human groups in the region is more fuzzy.
Ny-Alesund research station is a base not just for the Norwegians, who have political jurisdiction, but also for British, Indian and Chinese scientists. Few believe the national bases — Beijing’s has huge stone lions outside — are there just for science. They are symbolic political and economic stakes in the future of Svalbard and the Arctic.
Drilling is also under way in earnest off Greenland to the west and in the Barents Sea to the east of Svalbard. Oil price rises and melting ice caps have made the region more accessible for mining, shipping and drilling. Yet ownership of the Arctic seabed is far from clear.
The 1920 Spitsbergen treaty, drawn up after the World War I, gave onshore mineral rights to more than a dozen signatories, including the UK. Yet there are arguments whether Svalbard’s coastal waters are part of the Norwegian continental shelf and fall within Oslo’s jurisdiction. Fishing rights are disputed between Norway and Russia.
Trond Giske, Norway’s trade minister, says the uncertainty should not be exaggerated.
“On our part, we have no problem interpreting the treaty. We have very few conflicts with other countries in this area,” he says, pointing to an agreement with Russia last year to settle territorial boundaries in the Barents Sea.
The impact of that deal over the “gray zone” only brings oil drilling wealth closer to Svalbard’s islands — and increases pressure on Oslo to debate limits to its sovereignty.
Diana Wallis, a British lawyer and former MEP, touched a raw nerve with Norway in a speech in Tromso. She talked of “unresolved disputes around Spitsbergen” and insisted the EU had a legitimate interest in this and the wider Arctic.
A wider debate does not seem to be what countries licensing drilling operations off Alaska, Russia and Greenland want to hear. They have been happy to confine dialogue to an Arctic Council largely composed of states surrounding the Arctic Ocean. And they say territorial disputes — for example, between Canada and the US over seaways — are all being handled through the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.
They are determined to defend their right to introduce national oil regulations — which environmental groups and the global community are beginning to challenge.
“Like it or not, what is happening in the Arctic and how it is dealt with becomes everyone’s business,” Wallis said. “This is an issue which Norway and other Arctic states have to accommodate.”
While Greenpeace has physically tried to halt drilling off Greenland and Alaska, Norwegian environmental group Bellona is waging a war of words with Oslo. Its leader, Frederic Hauge, said: “It’s a big, big, big gamble exploring for oil in this area. There are so many stress factors here — be it the fish, the nuclear waste from the Cold War and the fragility of the ecosystem. I am also very worried about the geopolitics of the Arctic. We are acting like petroholics and I do not believe there is widespread support for it.”
Norway’s state energy company, Statoil, has its commercial compass pointing north, believing there is nothing to stop its deep water experience of the northern North Sea being safely applied to the Arctic or sub-Arctic.
Statoil points out it has been operating the first Arctic offshore gas field at Snohvit, since 2007. The company — 67 percent owned by the government — has signed a strategic exploration and production deal with Russia’s state-owned oil group, Rosneft. Statoil is also helping another Russian state company, Gazprom, build the huge Arctic offshore gas field, Shtokman — said to hold more gas reserves than remain in all Norway.
Hauge points to the irony of more fossil fuels being developed in an area where the impact of their carbon production is most acute.
Giske sees no contradiction between Norway’s physical search for hydrocarbons and the hunt for low-carbon solutions at Ny-Alesund.
“We are all going to be dependent on fossil fuels for a long period and natural gas is the bridge into a low carbon world,” he said. “If the EU replaced all its coal-fired power stations with natural gas it would easily meet its 20/20 (20 percent reduction in carbon emissions by 2020) goal.”
He is more concerned about EU energy commissioner Gunther Oettinger’s recent visit to Oslo to push a new regulatory regime. Oettinger is arguing that Europe is a key customer of Norwegian oil and gas and points to Norway’s membership of the European Economic Area as a reason why a common offshore safety regime would make sense.
Giske said Norway and Britain had more experience than anyone else in Europe — over 40 years — so why change a system that has worked well?
Meanwhile, Norway has moved the headquarters of its army from Oslo to a northern town, Bardufoss, and signed its biggest ever single military contract for jets to be located there.
Who is the enemy? Russia?
“No,” Giske says.
China? He almost chokes.
“Look we don’t need to identify an enemy to justify defense expenditure. We are after all part of the NATO alliance,” he says.
In Ny-Alesund, there is no discussion of a new Cold War over Arctic minerals, with Wijkman more worried about warming. He urges ministers to “raise awareness among the public about the serious risks posed by climate change and the necessity of urgent action.”
Note: The Norwegian government contributed to the cost of flying Terry Macalister to Svalbard.
In the US’ National Security Strategy (NSS) report released last month, US President Donald Trump offered his interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine. The “Trump Corollary,” presented on page 15, is a distinctly aggressive rebranding of the more than 200-year-old foreign policy position. Beyond reasserting the sovereignty of the western hemisphere against foreign intervention, the document centers on energy and strategic assets, and attempts to redraw the map of the geopolitical landscape more broadly. It is clear that Trump no longer sees the western hemisphere as a peaceful backyard, but rather as the frontier of a new Cold War. In particular,
When it became clear that the world was entering a new era with a radical change in the US’ global stance in US President Donald Trump’s second term, many in Taiwan were concerned about what this meant for the nation’s defense against China. Instability and disruption are dangerous. Chaos introduces unknowns. There was a sense that the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) might have a point with its tendency not to trust the US. The world order is certainly changing, but concerns about the implications for Taiwan of this disruption left many blind to how the same forces might also weaken
As the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) races toward its 2027 modernization goals, most analysts fixate on ship counts, missile ranges and artificial intelligence. Those metrics matter — but they obscure a deeper vulnerability. The true future of the PLA, and by extension Taiwan’s security, might hinge less on hardware than on whether the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) can preserve ideological loyalty inside its own armed forces. Iran’s 1979 revolution demonstrated how even a technologically advanced military can collapse when the social environment surrounding it shifts. That lesson has renewed relevance as fresh unrest shakes Iran today — and it should
As the new year dawns, Taiwan faces a range of external uncertainties that could impact the safety and prosperity of its people and reverberate in its politics. Here are a few key questions that could spill over into Taiwan in the year ahead. WILL THE AI BUBBLE POP? The global AI boom supported Taiwan’s significant economic expansion in 2025. Taiwan’s economy grew over 7 percent and set records for exports, imports, and trade surplus. There is a brewing debate among investors about whether the AI boom will carry forward into 2026. Skeptics warn that AI-led global equity markets are overvalued and overleveraged
RSS