[Reporter’s Notebook] One Junior Official Is Not Enough to Pioneer the Arctic Route

During the Arctic Circle Assembly held in Reykjavik, Iceland, from October 16 to 18 (local time), I felt a sense of pride every time foreign researchers mentioned South Korea. Korea was recognized in the Arctic region as a country that led the Central Arctic Ocean Fisheries Agreement (CAOFA) to prevent unregulated fishing in the high seas of the central Arctic Ocean, and as one of about 20 countries granted exploration permits by the International Seabed Authority.

Whenever Korea was mentioned, China and Japan were also named together. The three countries-Korea, China, and Japan-obtained observer status in the Arctic Council simultaneously in 2013, and have grown together as a "peer group" through both competition and cooperation. However, at this assembly, the three countries presented different images. With U.S. government officials unable to attend due to the shutdown (temporary suspension of government work), China sought to assert its influence in the Arctic as one of the G2 countries. Despite some controversy, China emphasized President Xi Jinping's Global Governance Initiative (GGI) and launched a public relations campaign. Japan enhanced its national brand value through royal diplomacy. The appearance of Japanese royalty at the assembly drew significant attention from participants. Princess Hisako of the Takamado family was the only non-Arctic state speaker to participate alone in the first main session.

In contrast, there was a sense of disappointment regarding Korea. Although opening the Arctic sea route has been designated as a national agenda item and the task force for this initiative is now managed directly by the Minister of Oceans and Fisheries, the scale of Korea's delegation to the assembly remained similar to previous years, despite growing domestic interest. While the Arctic Cooperation Representative from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs attended, the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries, the main ministry responsible for the Arctic sea route, dispatched only one newly appointed official, excluding research staff from affiliated organizations. Since its inception in 2013, the Arctic Circle Assembly has been the largest international event for discussing Arctic issues. With more than 2,000 participants-including prime ministers, ministers, heads of research institutions and multinational corporations, and representatives of Arctic indigenous communities from over 70 countries worldwide-one wonders if a larger government delegation from Korea would have been more appropriate. Although the timing of the National Assembly audit coincided with the assembly, raising understandable constraints, there was concern that Korea might be missing an opportunity to broaden its international engagement. The Arctic is a region where it is especially difficult to make inroads without the trust of Arctic states, making this all the more regrettable.

If the Lee Jaemyung administration is truly committed to developing the Arctic sea route, it must quickly establish a government-wide control tower. Korea's polar policy must expand beyond scientific research to scientific diplomacy. Only then can Korea survive in the competition for dominance. The efforts of the Arctic Cooperation Representative of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs alone are not enough. As glaciers melt, opportunities such as the Arctic sea route emerge, but so do crises, such as rising sea levels. If all government ministries respond together, Korea can earn greater trust from the international community on Arctic issues and take a leading role in international cooperation.