Towards a New ‘New Imperialism’?

The late nineteenth century was the high age of empire. European explorers, sailors, missionaries, traders and industrialists were spreading out across the globe, claiming almost anything and everything they could in the name of their respective countries. The British and French empires grew so vast that they ruled almost half of the world between them, while Europe vibrated with wealth, confidence and power like no continent had ever done so before. Indeed, there seemed no limits to what was possible. As Cecil John Rhodes said, during the ‘Scramble for Africa’, in the closing years of the Victorian age:

The world is nearly all parcelled out, and what there is left of it is being divided up, conquered and colonised. To think of these stars that you see overhead at night, these vast worlds which we can never reach. I would annex the planets if I could; I often think of that. It makes me so sad to see them so clear and yet so far.

Mr. Rhodes—who later gave much of his great fortune, made in the diamond mines of British South Africa, to found the Rhodes Scholarships at the University of Oxford—above all others defined his time. Aggressive, optimistic and confident, his personal mission was to extend the frontiers of his nation’s empire over all territories not yet under European imperial jurisdiction. He was even rumoured to have wanted to reassert London’s authority over the United States! Unfortunately for this great empire-builder, dreams of annexing other planets in other star systems were far beyond the reach of even the most arrogant of Victorians. But should he have looked closer to home, he might have noticed huge expanses of territory ripe for British colonisation on the North and South Poles. Granted, much of the land and ice is inhospitable for Europeans. Accepted, there was little of any real value on either Pole, especially for a late nineteenth century Victorian. But just as humans may one day spread out from Earth and colonise other planets, Mr. Rhodes should have also realised that there might be something worth having on the North and South Poles.

Russia’s Vladimir Putin certainly thinks so. Reminiscent of times past, when intrepid explorers turned up on foreign shores and claimed all the land in the name of ‘His Majesty’, it was almost comical watching a dingy Russian submarine plant a little Russian flag on the North Pole’s seabed in early August. This move, reinforcing moves made by the Kremlin in 2001 to extend its maritime borders to adjacent continental shelves, raised the hackles of other countries with boundaries on the Arctic Circle. As Canada’s foreign minister, Peter MacKay, put it: ‘This isn't the fifteenth century. You can’t go around the world and just plant flags and say: “We’re claiming this territory”.’ Well, actually—and this will come as news for a country like Canada, which has, for so long, sheltered under the security umbrella of the United States—you most certainly can. A large country bristling with nuclear missiles, and ruled by an increasingly aggressive and unpredictable elite, can in the end do whatever it likes, so long as other powers do not put up sufficient resistance. While other powers, not least the United States and European Union, can apply severe economic and diplomatic pressure, it may be succinctly difficult to dislodge the Russians from any claimed territory—particularly when that is thought to contain abundant supplies of oil and gas, which the Russians understand to provide them with new levers of political influence.

The world may, therefore, be about to enter a New ‘New Imperialism’. Whereas in the second half of the Victorian era European powers scrambled for Africa, today they may be set on a scramble for the North and South Poles—and any other unclaimed areas rich with natural resources. In light of Russia’s actions, Denmark, Canada and the United States have also raised claims to parts of the Arctic, some of which conflict with the Kremlin’s claims. Here, it is clear that we—the whole of the European Union—must throw our collective weight behind Denmark, especially if the Danish claim can provide us with potentially abundant maritime or territorial regions rich in oil and gas. Denmark has sent research teams to ascertain whether or not the Lomonosov Ridge is attached to Greenland (a Danish territory administered by Copenhagen). Other European Union Member States should provide all that is necessary in order to support the Danish team, whether this be geological expertise or complex undersea equipment. Their success could hold a number of implications, not least related to the security of our energy supply.

Energy security is a pressing pan-European issue at the moment, and we must diversify our supplies using whatever means we can. Environmentalists may argue that the North and South Poles should be left as pristine wildernesses, and they would in an ideal world be right. The Antarctic is at least protected by the Antarctic Treaty System, signed by all the major powers, including the European Union’s Member States, the United States and Russia. The North Pole, however, is covered by no similar treaty. Here, we face the worst of two evils. We can either claim as much of the regions rich in raw materials as possible, or leave them to their fate under countries like Russia. Should sensitive ecosystems be under our administration, we can ensure that high standards are maintained to protect them; if they are left to Russia, we have no such control. And it needs not be pointed out that Russia’s environmental record over the past few decades has been far from impressive. In fact, few countries can hold a worse record: From the Chernobyl nuclear catastrophe of 1986 and the atomic detonations conducted by the Soviet regime in the Northern reaches of the country during the 1960s, to the massive pollution caused by wasteful Soviet industry and the vast tracts of forest turned into wasteland by acid rain, Russia’s environmental destruction is unsurpassed. No indeed, simply leaving the North Pole to the Kremlin is not an option.

So there are three elements in Europe’s favour, which make it right for us to lay claim to unclaimed or partly claimed territories and maritime regions, particularly on our northern borders. First, we must ensure that others do not claim wildernesses to undermine our global power and authority; if they do, we must act as one through the European Union to rebuff their claims. Second, we must ensure that we have direct access to regions rich in energy supplies and in other strategic raw materials, or we may become heavily reliant on foreigners for essential supplies. Third, the protection of the environment will be more successful under Europeans’ watch than under anyone else’s; we have high environmental standards, others don’t.

Yet there is a final element to this Arctic saga, which concerns our pro-activeness: Why did we allow Russia to claim half of the North Pole in the first place? We must be more assertive. We cannot allow others to beat us to new resources or to stake out new spheres of influence. It is mandatory that we stay ahead of the game and do not fall from our position at the top of the world system. This is one area where Cecil Rhodes cannot be faulted. He understood the importance of assertiveness and power. His successors did not, and their political and economic power suffered as a result. It is easy to think that we live in different times, and that ‘power politics’ is a thing of the past. The actions of countries like Russia—and China in Africa—would suggest otherwise. We ignore these realities at our peril.