The politics of research presence revisited: A response to Molenaar and Ulfstein

«Presence equals influence in the Arctic», U.S. Coast Guard Commandant Karl Schultz summarised during an online event earlier this year. The admiral championed for new U.S. icebreakers. For non-Arctic nations seeking political influence in this region, the most opportune route to presence has been through Norwegian hospitality. In the archipelago of Svalbard, the Norwegian government has facilitated international researchers for years. Research institutions from around the world have been allowed to lease government-owned buildings in the research community NyÅlesund at 79° North and erect research infrastructure, ranging from small-sized sensor riggs to field camps, across the archipelago. Even as Norway has imposed strict conservation measures to preserve the Arctic wilderness and ecosystems, international researchers have been permitted to conduct fieldwork largely unaffected. My study «The Politics of Research Presence in Svalbard» calls out an unintended political fallout from the current facilitation of research. In recent years, some nations have added semi-governmental names and appearances to their research infrastructure, approximating them to enclave facilities hitherto found only in free-for-all Antarctica. Concurrently, capitals grow increasingly emboldened to capitalise on their presence-induced influence, pursuing a range of interests in Svalbard and the wider Arctic region. To the Norwegian government, the posturing in Svalbard represents a delicate challenge. First of all, these strategic footholds may undermine Norway’s exclusive jurisdiction in Svalbard, which is nothing like Antarctica. Also, if international research infrastructure becomes telltale vehicles for pursuing political ambitions in Svalbard and/or the wider Arctic region, Norway is compelled to consider whether the objectives of foreign capitals are aligned with Norwegian interests. The said study suggests they are not necessarily so.