EDITORIALS
EU’s non-ideological move on the Arctic
As is often the case, Brussels does not openly renounce its positions: it tweaks them, conveying the change through diplomatic phrasing that may seem minor. But the substance is important. The Arctic is no longer merely an ecosystem to be protected, but a strategic region. The climate targets remain, but they must contend with other interests that are equally significant
It has been a few months since the Norwegian Minister for Energy, Terje Aasland, challenged the European Union: “We will develop these areas and see whether the EU declares a moratorium on oil and gas purchases,” he said this summer regarding drilling in the Barents Sea (Il Foglio, 29 August). Now the deadlock appears to have been broken, precisely in the direction indicated by Oslo: Brussels is preparing to abandon one of the most ambitious objectives of its Arctic strategy. In 2021, the EU had declared its intention to keep oil, gas and coal in the ground, including in the Arctic, committing to work with partners towards a multilateral legal obligation that would prevent the development of new hydrocarbon reserves in the region and neighbouring areas. Among these partners was, of course, Norway, which has long claimed the right to exploit its own resources in the Barents Sea.
The new strategy, previewed yesterday by the Financial Times, reaffirms European opposition but abandons the goal of a binding international agreement. In a changed geopolitical context, that ambition has become unrealistic and conflicts with other European priorities, such as energy security. As is often the case, Brussels does not openly renounce its positions: it tweaks them, entrusting the change to diplomatic phrasing that may seem marginal. But the substance matters. The Arctic is no longer merely an ecosystem to be protected, but a strategic region. Climate targets remain, but they must contend with other equally significant interests. Europe still does not support the exploitation of Arctic hydrocarbons, but it needs oil and gas and imports resources extracted from that very region. The decision not to push for an international ban does not amount to an explicit green light for drilling by even the very green Norway. It does, however, mean ceasing to try to impose a restriction that risks compromising its own interests as well. In short: it is a way of clearing one’s conscience by looking the other way. Realism versus ideology: one–nil. And so be it if the cost is a little hypocrisy.